Yeah, but Harvard is still a very exclusive school. They still only admit people at the top of the bell curve -- something that has not changed in the last 100 years. The other 55% of people that are going on to higher education are mostly going to state universities and community colleges, not Harvard, so that hasn't had an impact on Harvard.
How would something like this make money for Microsoft? I'm serious. It's a cool research project, but it has few concrete applications (in the near future, at least) and a very high chance of failure. The current methods of doing real work, such as spreadsheets and databases, can't really be improved by a simulation of a human brain.
You sound like a guy who worked here:http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/No,_We_Need_a_Neural_Network.aspx
I suppose Bill Gates could also fund something like this personally, but I think that saving millions of lives through vaccination is a more worthwhile cause, at least for now.
I realize that is a joke, but it seems that a lot of people here need to read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Iran#Politics.
Currently, Iran has 9 women in parliament. Ahmadinejad also appointed a female minister in 2009. The women's participation rate in the economy was 31.9% in 2009. That's still shy of the US's ~60%, but far better of Saudi Arabia's women's participation rate of between 5 and 15%.
It seems to me that the only real laws limiting women in Iran, apart from abortion, is that they are required to wear head scarves. Compare that to Saudi Arabia, where they are not allowed to drive alone, need male witnesses to sign documents, and can't vote. It seems to me that the US is allied with the wrong Middle Eastern country, by equality and rights.
Actually, the real (supposed) reason for patents is so that companies make their own findings public, in exchange for being granted a limited monopoly on them. That way, after a few years (patents luckily have not seen insane increases in duration yet, unlike copyrights), other people will be able to both use that invention freely, and then develop new technology off of it. I think that the current problems with patents are two-fold. Firstly, the standards for granting them have fallen precipitously lately. This has been discussed to death on/., so I won't elaborate. But secondly, there should perhaps be different durations on patents for different fields. 20 years is a very long time for computing-related things, and by then applications using something have long been made obsolete. A simple reduction in patent duration for some fields would greatly reduce the number of patent trolls and place more pressure on patent-holders to monetize and thus release to the public their new technology quickly, before they lose their monopoly.
The thing is, absolutely everything needs to be like that. Keep in mind that the US energy grid is vastly outdated, and so if just a small part of it is damaged or taken out of commission (like by fooling monitoring systems into thinking something broke, or hiding warnings until stuff does get damaged, for example) that could cause a domino effect as other parts of the grid are overloaded and so also go out.
Actually, not all of what you said is true. Most of the costs associated with health care are incurred at the end of a person's life, and things like retirement homes, long stays at hospitals, and whatnot cost a fortune in the first world. Tobacco taxes cost the NHS about 5 billion pounds a year (source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8086142.stm), while tobacco taxes bring in over 12 billion pounds a year (source:http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/tax-revenue-from-tobacco/). The truth is that smokers die young and pay thousands of dollars a year in taxes, so they actually subsidize healthcare for other people. Governments promote health because that's one of the purposes of governments, and healthy people are more productive, but unhealthy people come cheaper for socialized healthcare and social insurance, such as government pensions.
There seems to be an obvious reason for why MSE has a low detection rate for zero days. It has a very low false positive rate (I've yet to get one, while I've had several with other anti virus programs) but that comes with a lower rate of detection for malware that's unknown to it.
How often do you even come across someone like Magnus Carlsen, let alone get a chance to play them? For most people, there is some element of chance in chess, because since they don't notice everything, it can be a crapshoot if your opponent will fall for your trap, see your attack, etc. or not.
It's only recently that humans have had the means to destroy the world. Previously, we could only do that to small, isolated places, like Easter Island.
It sounds like you need to brush up on your own history classes -- unless they were in the US, in which cases they made some important omissions. Such as the fact that England started shipping its inmates to Australia only after the American Revolution made them lose their favorite penal colony. Prior to then, many punishments for criminals consisted of them having to spend several years or their whole lives in the US.
If you are willing to game the system like that, why not just download the tracks illegally? Besides, resale price of used CDs is usually far below of what you paid for them, as with most things.
Perhaps such critical companies that are instrumental in the defense of the US shouldn't be for profit then. Nationalizing them could at least make sure they aren't ripping off the government with every order.
My house has lead plumbing. As do many places, like Buenos Aires, Argentina. Generally, as long as the water does not stagnate in lead pipes, the concentration is too low to be harmful. So, when I return from a vacation or something, I just need to let the water run for a few minutes.
Of far more concern would be Roman mens' use of lead combs to blacken their hair.
Keep in mind that most multinationals are divided into separate companies for different regions. So there's a good chance that the multinational actually has a EU company they stand a better chance of getting their money from.
That's only a problem with bad unions. Good ones make sure that union members are skilled and hardworking, so that they don't make everyone in the union look bad. Those issues are not really a problem in other countries, it seems to be a much bigger problem in the US.
That $16 trillion is an incredibly deceiving figure. Technically, they did loan that much, but most of it was in ultra-short term loans, usually only overnight. Loaning $20 billion or so every day, receiving it the next, loaning it again and so on adds up to almost $16 trillion over 2 years, but in reality only $20 billion would have been loaned.
But why not give the directors more options? If 120fps or something becomes the new standard, the director can just add some blur during post-processing if he wants to take attention away from something. However, now they'll be able to make proper pans and fast action scenes that aren't a blurry mess.
The thing is, 24fps is such a low frame rate that for pans and fast action scenes, the requisite motion blur turns everything into a blurry mess. Seriously, if you can't even do a proper pan with that frame rate, it's got to go.
There's different levels on nuttiness. Sure, plenty of people have a nervous breakdown or something once, but far fewer people go on shooting sprees. Besides, the lack of health care means it's less likely people will get professional help for their issues, since they may not be able to afford it.
In Switzerland, bullets are kept in special cans and if you simply open one without being authorized you'll get into tons of trouble. Being found with a can missing bullets or no can makes you a suspect for recent shootings, and there will be severe repercussions. Are you fine with that kind of bullet control?
I haven't looked at the statistics, but wouldn't having more rear-end collisions and fewer T-hits reduce the severity? Seems to me that getting T-boned is far more dangerous than getting rear-ended, especially at avenue speed.
Perhaps the reason you've never seen it is because they don't do it for the recognition or in order to remain in good standing with their church or community. I donate to charity pretty heavily, as do many of my friends, and we are all atheists, agnostics or Buddhists. However, we all donate anonymously (the only reason I know the others donate is that when we find a good cause we talk to each other about it, and we sometimes pool our donations to get specific things done).
Slashdot Mirror
How is one lying for the other? Presumably, they are both insisting they are innocent, and one of them actually is.
Yeah, but Harvard is still a very exclusive school. They still only admit people at the top of the bell curve -- something that has not changed in the last 100 years. The other 55% of people that are going on to higher education are mostly going to state universities and community colleges, not Harvard, so that hasn't had an impact on Harvard.
From what I've heard about BB10, they might already have an "Apple-killer." This could just be due to very promising sales. Only time will tell.
How would something like this make money for Microsoft? I'm serious. It's a cool research project, but it has few concrete applications (in the near future, at least) and a very high chance of failure. The current methods of doing real work, such as spreadsheets and databases, can't really be improved by a simulation of a human brain. You sound like a guy who worked here:http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/No,_We_Need_a_Neural_Network.aspx I suppose Bill Gates could also fund something like this personally, but I think that saving millions of lives through vaccination is a more worthwhile cause, at least for now.
I realize that is a joke, but it seems that a lot of people here need to read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Iran#Politics. Currently, Iran has 9 women in parliament. Ahmadinejad also appointed a female minister in 2009. The women's participation rate in the economy was 31.9% in 2009. That's still shy of the US's ~60%, but far better of Saudi Arabia's women's participation rate of between 5 and 15%. It seems to me that the only real laws limiting women in Iran, apart from abortion, is that they are required to wear head scarves. Compare that to Saudi Arabia, where they are not allowed to drive alone, need male witnesses to sign documents, and can't vote. It seems to me that the US is allied with the wrong Middle Eastern country, by equality and rights.
Actually, the real (supposed) reason for patents is so that companies make their own findings public, in exchange for being granted a limited monopoly on them. That way, after a few years (patents luckily have not seen insane increases in duration yet, unlike copyrights), other people will be able to both use that invention freely, and then develop new technology off of it. I think that the current problems with patents are two-fold. Firstly, the standards for granting them have fallen precipitously lately. This has been discussed to death on /., so I won't elaborate. But secondly, there should perhaps be different durations on patents for different fields. 20 years is a very long time for computing-related things, and by then applications using something have long been made obsolete. A simple reduction in patent duration for some fields would greatly reduce the number of patent trolls and place more pressure on patent-holders to monetize and thus release to the public their new technology quickly, before they lose their monopoly.
The thing is, absolutely everything needs to be like that. Keep in mind that the US energy grid is vastly outdated, and so if just a small part of it is damaged or taken out of commission (like by fooling monitoring systems into thinking something broke, or hiding warnings until stuff does get damaged, for example) that could cause a domino effect as other parts of the grid are overloaded and so also go out.
Actually, not all of what you said is true. Most of the costs associated with health care are incurred at the end of a person's life, and things like retirement homes, long stays at hospitals, and whatnot cost a fortune in the first world. Tobacco taxes cost the NHS about 5 billion pounds a year (source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8086142.stm), while tobacco taxes bring in over 12 billion pounds a year (source:http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/tax-revenue-from-tobacco/). The truth is that smokers die young and pay thousands of dollars a year in taxes, so they actually subsidize healthcare for other people. Governments promote health because that's one of the purposes of governments, and healthy people are more productive, but unhealthy people come cheaper for socialized healthcare and social insurance, such as government pensions.
There seems to be an obvious reason for why MSE has a low detection rate for zero days. It has a very low false positive rate (I've yet to get one, while I've had several with other anti virus programs) but that comes with a lower rate of detection for malware that's unknown to it.
How often do you even come across someone like Magnus Carlsen, let alone get a chance to play them? For most people, there is some element of chance in chess, because since they don't notice everything, it can be a crapshoot if your opponent will fall for your trap, see your attack, etc. or not.
It's only recently that humans have had the means to destroy the world. Previously, we could only do that to small, isolated places, like Easter Island.
It sounds like you need to brush up on your own history classes -- unless they were in the US, in which cases they made some important omissions. Such as the fact that England started shipping its inmates to Australia only after the American Revolution made them lose their favorite penal colony. Prior to then, many punishments for criminals consisted of them having to spend several years or their whole lives in the US.
If you are willing to game the system like that, why not just download the tracks illegally? Besides, resale price of used CDs is usually far below of what you paid for them, as with most things.
Perhaps such critical companies that are instrumental in the defense of the US shouldn't be for profit then. Nationalizing them could at least make sure they aren't ripping off the government with every order.
My house has lead plumbing. As do many places, like Buenos Aires, Argentina. Generally, as long as the water does not stagnate in lead pipes, the concentration is too low to be harmful. So, when I return from a vacation or something, I just need to let the water run for a few minutes. Of far more concern would be Roman mens' use of lead combs to blacken their hair.
Keep in mind that most multinationals are divided into separate companies for different regions. So there's a good chance that the multinational actually has a EU company they stand a better chance of getting their money from.
That's only a problem with bad unions. Good ones make sure that union members are skilled and hardworking, so that they don't make everyone in the union look bad. Those issues are not really a problem in other countries, it seems to be a much bigger problem in the US.
That $16 trillion is an incredibly deceiving figure. Technically, they did loan that much, but most of it was in ultra-short term loans, usually only overnight. Loaning $20 billion or so every day, receiving it the next, loaning it again and so on adds up to almost $16 trillion over 2 years, but in reality only $20 billion would have been loaned.
But why not give the directors more options? If 120fps or something becomes the new standard, the director can just add some blur during post-processing if he wants to take attention away from something. However, now they'll be able to make proper pans and fast action scenes that aren't a blurry mess.
The thing is, 24fps is such a low frame rate that for pans and fast action scenes, the requisite motion blur turns everything into a blurry mess. Seriously, if you can't even do a proper pan with that frame rate, it's got to go.
It's a lot easier to get into a building carrying a handgun without arousing suspicion than carrying a rifle.
There's different levels on nuttiness. Sure, plenty of people have a nervous breakdown or something once, but far fewer people go on shooting sprees. Besides, the lack of health care means it's less likely people will get professional help for their issues, since they may not be able to afford it.
In Switzerland, bullets are kept in special cans and if you simply open one without being authorized you'll get into tons of trouble. Being found with a can missing bullets or no can makes you a suspect for recent shootings, and there will be severe repercussions. Are you fine with that kind of bullet control?
I haven't looked at the statistics, but wouldn't having more rear-end collisions and fewer T-hits reduce the severity? Seems to me that getting T-boned is far more dangerous than getting rear-ended, especially at avenue speed.
Perhaps the reason you've never seen it is because they don't do it for the recognition or in order to remain in good standing with their church or community. I donate to charity pretty heavily, as do many of my friends, and we are all atheists, agnostics or Buddhists. However, we all donate anonymously (the only reason I know the others donate is that when we find a good cause we talk to each other about it, and we sometimes pool our donations to get specific things done).