What a pile of crap. Gawker was destroyed by their own actions. Period. 'The billionaire' did not publish the sex tapes. He did not ignore court orders to take them down. The only thing his money did was allow a wronged person to get redress. I guess in your ideal world a wronged person should have no recourse if he can't afford it on his own.
Wrong. The First does not say 'the goverment shall have no involvement in any freedom of speech issues', it says 'Congress shall make no law...'. The Courts are not Congress, and the Courts were not created by Congress, and the Courts are not controlled by Congress,
You have it backwards. The problem is NOT that someone with a billion dollars can 'have their eay in the courts', it is that it REQUIRED someone with a billion dollars to get these assholes to respect the rights of others.
There are more than 822M outstanding shares of T-Mobile stock. They are giving away approx 11M. That is not going to change the operation of the company in the slightest.
Learn to read. The $9B is the value of the COMPANY, not the value of her stake in the company. She owns only common stock, which is essentially worthless.
The $900M is the value of the COMPANY, not her net worth. They figure the only way to get value out of the company is to liquidate it, and she would get almost none of the proceeds. So HER net worth is $0.
Eh, no. The crime that did not occur was buying stolen credit cards. He is not charged with that crime. The crime he is charged with is money laundering, which is trying to hide transactions. If the money laundering law is written such that engaging in any transaction when you have reason to believe the purpose of the transaction is to hide illegal activity, then he has done that.
Similarly, for your 'drug buy', the actual law will not be merely 'buying or selling drugs'. The law will be something like engaging in a transaction with the INTENT to buy or sell drugs. How is the intent demonstated? By handing over money for what you THINK are drugs, regardless of whether or not they are actually drugs.
But what actually IMPROVED during those previous hikes? Did people just start making more money at their existing jobs, without an increase in cost of living? Or did many, many jobs go away and people moved to other industries? What I saw happen was this: labor costs go up, factories close and move production somewhere cheaper. Minimum wage factory worker gets a job as minimum wage order-taker, making a little more money. But the factory workers who were making MORE than minimum wage are also now forced to take a minimum wage job, LOSING money in the process. Yeah, the bottom moved up a little, but now there are a whole lot more people closer to the bottom, which is exactly the opposite of what should happen.
In the 70s and 80s, when the manufacturing sector was imploding, there were low-paying but available jobs, mostly in retail and food service. Those jobs were deemed 'safe' because people need to buy things and eat. Now, we see that those jobs are very vulnerable. Where are the displaced retail and food workers going to get jobs? You can't just say 'unemployment didn't happen in the past so it won't now'. In fact, there was MASSIVE unemployment in certain sectors, it was just that other sectors were able to absorb the workers (although they are making less money).
Are you paid to write this drivel, or are you just that gullible? There is nothing impressive or amazing about any of this.
Lets start with your subject line. Odds defying picks? Where? Every pick they made was for a favorite, or exactly who the odds said should win. WTF is amazing about that? They didn't 'defy' a damn thing.
College bowl games. If you can correctly predict 10 out of 10 winners, beating the spread, your payout should be thousands of times your original bet, not a piddly 1.35 times. The fact that they made only 1.35 times the original bet means they placed 10 individual bets, picking the favorite every time. ANYONE can do that (and did), which is why the payout was about as low as it could possibly be.
Beat ESPN analysts. That really proves nothing. ESPN analysts are not there to tell you who to bet on, they are there to provide entertainment and get people to watch the show or read the web site. A bunch of guys sitting around agreeing that the favorites are going to win does not exactly make for compelling television. So, they INTENTIONALLY pick some teams they know are likely to lose just so they have something to talk about (and also give the viewers and fans something to talk and argue about). Just about any sports fan can make more accurate selections than the ESPN analysts, because the analysts aren't even trying to be accurate.
The Oscars. The only way to correctly predict the winners of the Oscars is to focus on the VOTERS, just like in any election. But movie critics (who UNU supposedly 'beat') and movie fans don't give a crap about voters. Movie critics say who they think SHOULD win and why, not who they think WILL win. Their focus is on the movies, actors, etc not on the voters. And, just like the ESPN analysts, sometimes they say things they don't actually believe, just so they have something interesting to talk about. Saying UNU predicted the winners more accurately than the critics is really stupid, as the critics weren't even trying to predict winners.
The Kentucky Derby. Here again, all they did was make the same picks as everyone else. That does not require any sort of intelligence, wild animals have been 'following the herd' for a very long time.
What is conspicuously missing is any mention of Super Bowl L, which fell right in between the college bowl games and the Oscars. Are we expected to believe that UNU didn't make any prediction about the biggest US sporting event of the year? Most likely, as in all the other cases, they simply picked the favorite and LOST. But they can't say that, because then gullible dopes like you may not fall for their 'amazing' string of successes. I wonder how many other things they picked completely wrong, but have neglected to mention.
The biggest US sporting event of the year is the Super Bowl. Yet for some reason there is absolutely no mention of this years Super Bowl. Why is that? Probably because they got it wrong. If that is the case, then they are just like all the other gamblers who claim they 'always win' by conveniently forgetting about their loses.
If they only made 135% on the bowl games that is pretty pathetic. That means the bets were at something like 1:3 odds. In other words, damn near everybody made those same picks so that doesn't prove anything. Lots of people 'beat Vegas' at sports betting.
The Oscars? Totally subjective how anyone votes on that. The 'experts' are not handicapping the Oscars, they are saying who they think SHOULD win, not who WILL win.
And lastly, this farce. Again, they just picked the same favorites as everyone else. Not too challenging.
'Suspected of cheating' is not the same as having some 'system' to beat roulette that the casinos don't like. If you think he actually has some 'system' you are an idiot. He got incredibly lucky, unusually so, so they suspected him of cheating. Big deal. Your assertion that you can win at roulette over the long term is still flatly wrong.
Uh, yeah. 'Once or twice a year' proves exactly nothing. There are people who win a bunch on slot machines 'once or twice'. That in no way implies that you can 'beat' roulette. You can't. If you play long enough you will lose.
Asked to leave because of winning too much? Bullshit. There are reasons you will be asked to leave, such as touching bets after they tell you to stop. Winning is not one of them.
The thing is, there is absolutely NOTHING 'new' about this. The odds of every single horse race over the last centuries has been determined by 'the swarm'. The first automatic totalisator to calculate and display the odds was installed in 1913.
The only question this thing could possibly answer is 'is betting favorites a winning strategy'? There are literally thousands of race results available that could be looked at to determine the answer to that. That does not require any kind of AI, it requires a dirt-simple spreadsheet.
You don't know how parimutuel betting works. There are no 'odds makers' to 'decide' anything. The odds are determined purely by how much money was bet on a particular outcome vs all other outcomes. Let's say there was a total of $600K spent on Superfecta betting. The 'house' (track) takes a cut of that - that is their only interest in the betting, they have no stake in the outcome at all. So say they take 10%, leaving $540K. The race is run, and at the end there are 1000 $1 winning tickets. Every ticket holder gets $540 for each dollar bet. The 'odds' were 540:1.
The ONLY thing odds of 540:1 means is that for every $1 bet on THIS outcome, $540 was bet on ALL OTHER POSSIBLE outcomes. Since there are literally THOUSANDS of other possible outcomes, 540:1 is actually VERY GOOD odds, and means this was the FAVORITE outcome.
There are no 'odds makers' involved. This is parimutuel betting. The odds are determined solely by how many people are betting on a given outcome versus all the other outcomes. In other words, the 'odds' are determined by 'swarm intelligence', and have been for centuries. This is not something new.
If you want to use 'swarm intellegence' to place a bet, all you have to do is look at the current odds. Whatever has the lowest odds the 'swarm' has determined is the likely winner. I can't figure out what this great AI has supposedly done. Use 'swarm intelligence' to determine a likely outcome? That is called betting the favorites, and requires zero intelligence.
Is there some kind of joke here that I missed? Roulette is one of the dumbest things to bet on. Hell, now they even have digital boards that display 'todays hot numbers' and 'todays cold numbers' and 'last 10 spins', etc just so they can lure in suckers who think they have a 'system' to beat roulette.
Uh, no. There are no 'bookmakers' involved with this. This is parimutuel betting. The 'odds' are determined simply by dividing the total money bet on a specific thing (like the Superfecta) by the number of tickets sold for a specific outcome. The 'odds' are determined ENTIRELY by 'collective wisdom'.
You're missing the point. For THIS RACE, the horses came in in the order the betting predicted. Quite often, they don't. EVERYONE who bet the Superfecta by picking the favorites won (there were probably at least 1000 winners). Are they all super-geniuses at picking races? No, most of them are just people who went with the favorites and got lucky, just like this AI.
When this thing starts picking AGAINST the favorites, and consistently winning, then there will be something to talk about, Picking the favorites in one race and winning is no great shakes.
And there are no 'odds makers' for this. The 'odds' are determined simply by dividing the total money bet on the Superfecta (after the tracks takeout, of course) by the number of winners. The 'odds' are not a probability of winning, but the expected payout if you do win.
The odds of winning the Superfecta are certainly not 116,000:1. If that were the actual odds anyone would be insane to place such a bet when the payout is only $542. Those odds would be true ONLY if it were equally likely for every hose to finish in any given position. Clearly that is not true, or this AI would not have 'picked' a winner, it would just have gotten lucky with a RNG.
I don't know what the Superfecta pool was, but it was probably at least a half a million, so there are probably around 1000 other winners just for this race.
This program picked ONE horse race winner (so far). A whole lot of people can pick ONE winner (especially when picking favorites, which is what this did), but it is rare to be able to CONSISTENTLY do that, which is why most people lose.
Have you ever actually BEEN to a gas station? Did you ever wonder 'why is that concrete slab there'? The whole area is usually asphalt, but where the pumps (and where the tanker delivers) is concrete. And that concrete usually has a pattern of grooves around the perimeter. Do you think that is just a nice design they all happened to like? The concrete is there for three reasons: prevent spills (which DO happen) from seeping into the ground, keep spills in one place (the grooves) so it can be properly cleaned up, and because gasoline is incredibly damaging to asphalt.
When you are done looking at the ground, look up. See all those nozzles sticking out of the canopy? More fancy design? No. Automatic fire suppression. Can you think of any reason THAT might be a good idea?
Yes, gas station leaks do sometimes happen. And who is responsible when they do? The property owner. Just think of how happy parking lot owners are going to be when some jackass not only damages the lot with a spill, but leaves them with contaminated property THEY are responsible for. No sane parking lot owner would ever allow something stupid like this in their lot.
And where did you get the idiotic idea that unburned fuel comes out the tailpipe? That stuff you see dripping is water, not fuel. If unburned fuel is coming out something is seriously wrong, and an overheated converter and possible vehicle fire are coming shortly.
The parties want to have a candidate who can actually WIN the election. That means they must put up someone who is liked by their side, and not hated too much by the other side. Trump and Sanders completely fail that test. As popular as they may be with some primary voters, they stand practically ZERO chance of winning the general election.
As for the 'capitialism' thing - again, what else is new? This is the same as a young generation thinking it has invented sex. Pretty much EVERY generation starts out with liberal ideals and bemoans the 'unfairness' of capitalism. Then they grow up, get some wisdom, change from an idealistic view to a pragmatic one, and suddenly capitalism doesn't seem like such an awful thing.
Oddly enough, I didn't say anything about suing a Chinese company operating out of China. I said Amazon (not a Chinese company) could be being threatened. As for the Chinese companies, they can be dealt with by Customs. But it is probably much easier and more efficient to just tell Amazon to stop selling that crap.
Nonsense. The standard is about interoperability. A device protecting itself has nothing to do with interoperability, therefore it does not belong in the standard.
Slashdot Mirror
What a pile of crap. Gawker was destroyed by their own actions. Period. 'The billionaire' did not publish the sex tapes. He did not ignore court orders to take them down. The only thing his money did was allow a wronged person to get redress. I guess in your ideal world a wronged person should have no recourse if he can't afford it on his own.
Wrong. The First does not say 'the goverment shall have no involvement in any freedom of speech issues', it says 'Congress shall make no law...'. The Courts are not Congress, and the Courts were not created by Congress, and the Courts are not controlled by Congress,
You have it backwards. The problem is NOT that someone with a billion dollars can 'have their eay in the courts', it is that it REQUIRED someone with a billion dollars to get these assholes to respect the rights of others.
There are more than 822M outstanding shares of T-Mobile stock. They are giving away approx 11M. That is not going to change the operation of the company in the slightest.
Stock, not options.
Learn to read. The $9B is the value of the COMPANY, not the value of her stake in the company. She owns only common stock, which is essentially worthless.
The $900M is the value of the COMPANY, not her net worth. They figure the only way to get value out of the company is to liquidate it, and she would get almost none of the proceeds. So HER net worth is $0.
Eh, no. The crime that did not occur was buying stolen credit cards. He is not charged with that crime. The crime he is charged with is money laundering, which is trying to hide transactions. If the money laundering law is written such that engaging in any transaction when you have reason to believe the purpose of the transaction is to hide illegal activity, then he has done that.
Similarly, for your 'drug buy', the actual law will not be merely 'buying or selling drugs'. The law will be something like engaging in a transaction with the INTENT to buy or sell drugs. How is the intent demonstated? By handing over money for what you THINK are drugs, regardless of whether or not they are actually drugs.
But what actually IMPROVED during those previous hikes? Did people just start making more money at their existing jobs, without an increase in cost of living? Or did many, many jobs go away and people moved to other industries? What I saw happen was this: labor costs go up, factories close and move production somewhere cheaper. Minimum wage factory worker gets a job as minimum wage order-taker, making a little more money. But the factory workers who were making MORE than minimum wage are also now forced to take a minimum wage job, LOSING money in the process. Yeah, the bottom moved up a little, but now there are a whole lot more people closer to the bottom, which is exactly the opposite of what should happen.
In the 70s and 80s, when the manufacturing sector was imploding, there were low-paying but available jobs, mostly in retail and food service. Those jobs were deemed 'safe' because people need to buy things and eat. Now, we see that those jobs are very vulnerable. Where are the displaced retail and food workers going to get jobs? You can't just say 'unemployment didn't happen in the past so it won't now'. In fact, there was MASSIVE unemployment in certain sectors, it was just that other sectors were able to absorb the workers (although they are making less money).
Are you paid to write this drivel, or are you just that gullible? There is nothing impressive or amazing about any of this.
Lets start with your subject line. Odds defying picks? Where? Every pick they made was for a favorite, or exactly who the odds said should win. WTF is amazing about that? They didn't 'defy' a damn thing.
College bowl games. If you can correctly predict 10 out of 10 winners, beating the spread, your payout should be thousands of times your original bet, not a piddly 1.35 times. The fact that they made only 1.35 times the original bet means they placed 10 individual bets, picking the favorite every time. ANYONE can do that (and did), which is why the payout was about as low as it could possibly be.
Beat ESPN analysts. That really proves nothing. ESPN analysts are not there to tell you who to bet on, they are there to provide entertainment and get people to watch the show or read the web site. A bunch of guys sitting around agreeing that the favorites are going to win does not exactly make for compelling television. So, they INTENTIONALLY pick some teams they know are likely to lose just so they have something to talk about (and also give the viewers and fans something to talk and argue about). Just about any sports fan can make more accurate selections than the ESPN analysts, because the analysts aren't even trying to be accurate.
The Oscars. The only way to correctly predict the winners of the Oscars is to focus on the VOTERS, just like in any election. But movie critics (who UNU supposedly 'beat') and movie fans don't give a crap about voters. Movie critics say who they think SHOULD win and why, not who they think WILL win. Their focus is on the movies, actors, etc not on the voters. And, just like the ESPN analysts, sometimes they say things they don't actually believe, just so they have something interesting to talk about. Saying UNU predicted the winners more accurately than the critics is really stupid, as the critics weren't even trying to predict winners.
The Kentucky Derby. Here again, all they did was make the same picks as everyone else. That does not require any sort of intelligence, wild animals have been 'following the herd' for a very long time.
What is conspicuously missing is any mention of Super Bowl L, which fell right in between the college bowl games and the Oscars. Are we expected to believe that UNU didn't make any prediction about the biggest US sporting event of the year? Most likely, as in all the other cases, they simply picked the favorite and LOST. But they can't say that, because then gullible dopes like you may not fall for their 'amazing' string of successes. I wonder how many other things they picked completely wrong, but have neglected to mention.
The biggest US sporting event of the year is the Super Bowl. Yet for some reason there is absolutely no mention of this years Super Bowl. Why is that? Probably because they got it wrong. If that is the case, then they are just like all the other gamblers who claim they 'always win' by conveniently forgetting about their loses.
If they only made 135% on the bowl games that is pretty pathetic. That means the bets were at something like 1:3 odds. In other words, damn near everybody made those same picks so that doesn't prove anything. Lots of people 'beat Vegas' at sports betting.
The Oscars? Totally subjective how anyone votes on that. The 'experts' are not handicapping the Oscars, they are saying who they think SHOULD win, not who WILL win.
And lastly, this farce. Again, they just picked the same favorites as everyone else. Not too challenging.
'Suspected of cheating' is not the same as having some 'system' to beat roulette that the casinos don't like. If you think he actually has some 'system' you are an idiot. He got incredibly lucky, unusually so, so they suspected him of cheating. Big deal. Your assertion that you can win at roulette over the long term is still flatly wrong.
Uh, yeah. 'Once or twice a year' proves exactly nothing. There are people who win a bunch on slot machines 'once or twice'. That in no way implies that you can 'beat' roulette. You can't. If you play long enough you will lose.
Asked to leave because of winning too much? Bullshit. There are reasons you will be asked to leave, such as touching bets after they tell you to stop. Winning is not one of them.
The thing is, there is absolutely NOTHING 'new' about this. The odds of every single horse race over the last centuries has been determined by 'the swarm'. The first automatic totalisator to calculate and display the odds was installed in 1913.
The only question this thing could possibly answer is 'is betting favorites a winning strategy'? There are literally thousands of race results available that could be looked at to determine the answer to that. That does not require any kind of AI, it requires a dirt-simple spreadsheet.
You don't know how parimutuel betting works. There are no 'odds makers' to 'decide' anything. The odds are determined purely by how much money was bet on a particular outcome vs all other outcomes. Let's say there was a total of $600K spent on Superfecta betting. The 'house' (track) takes a cut of that - that is their only interest in the betting, they have no stake in the outcome at all. So say they take 10%, leaving $540K. The race is run, and at the end there are 1000 $1 winning tickets. Every ticket holder gets $540 for each dollar bet. The 'odds' were 540:1.
The ONLY thing odds of 540:1 means is that for every $1 bet on THIS outcome, $540 was bet on ALL OTHER POSSIBLE outcomes. Since there are literally THOUSANDS of other possible outcomes, 540:1 is actually VERY GOOD odds, and means this was the FAVORITE outcome.
There are no 'odds makers' involved. This is parimutuel betting. The odds are determined solely by how many people are betting on a given outcome versus all the other outcomes. In other words, the 'odds' are determined by 'swarm intelligence', and have been for centuries. This is not something new.
If you want to use 'swarm intellegence' to place a bet, all you have to do is look at the current odds. Whatever has the lowest odds the 'swarm' has determined is the likely winner. I can't figure out what this great AI has supposedly done. Use 'swarm intelligence' to determine a likely outcome? That is called betting the favorites, and requires zero intelligence.
Is there some kind of joke here that I missed? Roulette is one of the dumbest things to bet on. Hell, now they even have digital boards that display 'todays hot numbers' and 'todays cold numbers' and 'last 10 spins', etc just so they can lure in suckers who think they have a 'system' to beat roulette.
Uh, no. There are no 'bookmakers' involved with this. This is parimutuel betting. The 'odds' are determined simply by dividing the total money bet on a specific thing (like the Superfecta) by the number of tickets sold for a specific outcome. The 'odds' are determined ENTIRELY by 'collective wisdom'.
You're missing the point. For THIS RACE, the horses came in in the order the betting predicted. Quite often, they don't. EVERYONE who bet the Superfecta by picking the favorites won (there were probably at least 1000 winners). Are they all super-geniuses at picking races? No, most of them are just people who went with the favorites and got lucky, just like this AI.
When this thing starts picking AGAINST the favorites, and consistently winning, then there will be something to talk about, Picking the favorites in one race and winning is no great shakes.
And there are no 'odds makers' for this. The 'odds' are determined simply by dividing the total money bet on the Superfecta (after the tracks takeout, of course) by the number of winners. The 'odds' are not a probability of winning, but the expected payout if you do win.
The odds of winning the Superfecta are certainly not 116,000:1. If that were the actual odds anyone would be insane to place such a bet when the payout is only $542. Those odds would be true ONLY if it were equally likely for every hose to finish in any given position. Clearly that is not true, or this AI would not have 'picked' a winner, it would just have gotten lucky with a RNG.
I don't know what the Superfecta pool was, but it was probably at least a half a million, so there are probably around 1000 other winners just for this race.
This program picked ONE horse race winner (so far). A whole lot of people can pick ONE winner (especially when picking favorites, which is what this did), but it is rare to be able to CONSISTENTLY do that, which is why most people lose.
Have you ever actually BEEN to a gas station? Did you ever wonder 'why is that concrete slab there'? The whole area is usually asphalt, but where the pumps (and where the tanker delivers) is concrete. And that concrete usually has a pattern of grooves around the perimeter. Do you think that is just a nice design they all happened to like? The concrete is there for three reasons: prevent spills (which DO happen) from seeping into the ground, keep spills in one place (the grooves) so it can be properly cleaned up, and because gasoline is incredibly damaging to asphalt.
When you are done looking at the ground, look up. See all those nozzles sticking out of the canopy? More fancy design? No. Automatic fire suppression. Can you think of any reason THAT might be a good idea?
Yes, gas station leaks do sometimes happen. And who is responsible when they do? The property owner. Just think of how happy parking lot owners are going to be when some jackass not only damages the lot with a spill, but leaves them with contaminated property THEY are responsible for. No sane parking lot owner would ever allow something stupid like this in their lot.
And where did you get the idiotic idea that unburned fuel comes out the tailpipe? That stuff you see dripping is water, not fuel. If unburned fuel is coming out something is seriously wrong, and an overheated converter and possible vehicle fire are coming shortly.
The parties want to have a candidate who can actually WIN the election. That means they must put up someone who is liked by their side, and not hated too much by the other side. Trump and Sanders completely fail that test. As popular as they may be with some primary voters, they stand practically ZERO chance of winning the general election.
As for the 'capitialism' thing - again, what else is new? This is the same as a young generation thinking it has invented sex. Pretty much EVERY generation starts out with liberal ideals and bemoans the 'unfairness' of capitalism. Then they grow up, get some wisdom, change from an idealistic view to a pragmatic one, and suddenly capitalism doesn't seem like such an awful thing.
Oddly enough, I didn't say anything about suing a Chinese company operating out of China. I said Amazon (not a Chinese company) could be being threatened. As for the Chinese companies, they can be dealt with by Customs. But it is probably much easier and more efficient to just tell Amazon to stop selling that crap.
Nonsense. The standard is about interoperability. A device protecting itself has nothing to do with interoperability, therefore it does not belong in the standard.