If his papers are fine then why did he not disclose his funding source?
Prove that he didnt. Currently, all there are are claims that he didn't under the premise that sometimes he is funded by X but in some papers he doesnt say that he is funded by X.
25 years ago I collected unemployment or a few months, which is why I am now disclosing that this post was funded by unemployment insurance. Also, its funded by the lottery administration because once I had a $4 winner. Not to omit anything, my current employer is also funding this post, and lets not forget that my friend paid for dinner the other night.
Sure, none of that actually funded this post, but then apparently you dont have to prove that they did in order to damn me.
You and your imaginary broker that allows you to do short selling without a fat margin
Are you imagining that we are claiming to sell short with an empty wallet?
When you wallet is empty, you cannot buy either.
perhaps the reason you cannot imagine regular folks selling short is that you are an idiot that doesnt know how to sell short? yeah... all your posts indicate this. All your posts indicate that you know extremely little about anything market related, least of all how people short stocks.
oh noes!! deflation! stuff will get cheaper and thats terrible!!
All the opponents of deflation cite cases where there was a economic catastrophe that resulted in deflation, where they then spin it to blame all the bad things that happened on the deflation rather than the catastrophe.
Yup, there's that too. Still, however, if you get your health insurance without any subsidy, the IRS only need to know that you have it.
Why didnt you address the part in his post which refutes what you are now saying? Seems like you large amount of intellectual dishonesty on your part. (why so dishonest? is it that you are uninformed and don't realize just how dishonest you are being?) You have to have the right kind of health insurance. Many people had plans much more responsible than so called qualified plans, that dont qualify.
When I was growing up the plans were called Major Medical, and later on they were re-tokened High Deductible. They are cheaper and cover more of the things that insurance is for, which is preventing a financial catastrophe. They exclude the middle man from routine expenses like yearly physicals and teeth cleanings, making those activities cheaper as well.
But no... you want to dishonestly defend the ACA like its a good thing when clearly a good thing would encourage Major Medical, rather than declare it unqualified.
thats it, would have cost next to nothing to the people, and would accomplish the only good thing that obamacare has going for it.
..and is something many States already had a law for. It is unbelievable how many people point to the pre-existing conditions rule completely unaware that they were already living under such a law. It just goes to show that uninformed idiots are deciding things, and then defending those things, while commiting logical fallacies all the way through.
The ISP discriminates against sources not on its network. Not sure why you dont understand that this as a violation of net neutrality... perhaps because you want faster torrents...
Peering arrangements are focused largely on improving performance, similar to what this patent describes.
The patent doesnt describe a peering arrangement.
Saying this violates Net Neutrality opens to the door to scrutinize pretty much the backbone of how the internet functions today.
Well, thats exactly what net neutrality does. It opens the door, and you have been told already that it does. Bureaucrats will be deciding these things now. Thanks for letting this happen.
A really superior chess engine might get 0.1 points advantage in every pair of moves, and after 30 moves you haven't got a chance. But we are talking here about blunders with 2.0 points disadvantage in one move.
I've spent years following the TCEC and watching Crafty get demolished again and again and again, and its never via the slow 0.1 grind that you are imagining. You are talking out your ass right now.
Crafty regularly (*almost every game*) makes blunders giving what the top engines see as +3 pawns and higher advantage. It then often takes crafty several more moves to finally see that its lost, and then it regularly mis-evaluates that as even worse than it really is (because its failure to see goes both ways.)
I think the big problem is that a "mistake" is being defined so crudely.
..especially since he is using a horrible chess engine to decide what a mistake is.
Crafty, the engine he used is rated 2825
Stockfish, (arguably) the best engine available (and its open source) is rated 3390
..for a difference if 3390 - 2825 = 565
So by his own research numbers the engine he used for his blunder analysis blunders about twice as often as the free Stockfish which he could have used.
The FDA should have it's scope limited somewhat, focusing more on purity of things is regulates and less on effectiveness and uses.
Prior to 1962 the FDA only required proof of safety before a drug could be sold and marketed. The mandate was changed in 1962 to include efficacy, and the excuse for doing so were the birth defects caused by thalidomide in Europe. Note that thalidomide was quite effective, but not safe, which is why the FDA already didn't allow it to be marketed or sold in the United States. The FDA pounded its own chest and asked congress for more control even though it didn't need it to prevent thalidomide birth defects in the States, and thus congress passed the Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendment.
Thats it right there. Before 1962 the FDA didn't care about efficacy. After 1962 it did, and all because the FDA's safety mandate was good enough.
A group of people rigs the game to the where where they have a stranglehold, to the detriment of ALL others. That same group (or their progeny) then cries that those not-so-fairly won advantages shouldn't be taken away for the sake of the industry...and themselves.
In this case, the group is the misogynist nerds.
Their power and influence is legendary, especially their power to discriminate against women.
I have an idea. Think about things before you say them. Then we will get less of this bullshit from your kind.... the kind that finds victims to feel good about defending literally everywhere. I dont have to use the label. Everyone knows it.
Thats the problem right there. People think that if engagement in a particular activity by gender is changing over time, that its because of some nebulous hand-wavy idea like it being "acceptable now."
Slashdot Mirror
Look at his paper and also at the sup for his paper. Is it in there?
Which paper? The one you claim was funded by someone?
This post is funded by unemployment because at one time I got some money from them.
Yes, when people vote on principle instead of self interest they are just "poor gullible minimum wage idiots"
Gotcha... greedy Democrats don't understand principles.
If his papers are fine then why did he not disclose his funding source?
Prove that he didnt. Currently, all there are are claims that he didn't under the premise that sometimes he is funded by X but in some papers he doesnt say that he is funded by X.
25 years ago I collected unemployment or a few months, which is why I am now disclosing that this post was funded by unemployment insurance. Also, its funded by the lottery administration because once I had a $4 winner. Not to omit anything, my current employer is also funding this post, and lets not forget that my friend paid for dinner the other night.
Sure, none of that actually funded this post, but then apparently you dont have to prove that they did in order to damn me.
Now people have a lot more success with deep learning, mostly because they've been throwing a lot more hardware at it.
Bullshit.
The success of deep learning coincided with the discovery of a novel training method, not improved hardware.
Why even open your mouth?
How is this informative? Nicotine isnt exactly hard to overdose on.
Those that modded this guy informative are partisan assholes.
dumbfucks
You and your imaginary broker that allows you to do short selling without a fat margin
Are you imagining that we are claiming to sell short with an empty wallet?
When you wallet is empty, you cannot buy either.
perhaps the reason you cannot imagine regular folks selling short is that you are an idiot that doesnt know how to sell short? yeah... all your posts indicate this. All your posts indicate that you know extremely little about anything market related, least of all how people short stocks.
oh noes!! deflation! stuff will get cheaper and thats terrible!!
All the opponents of deflation cite cases where there was a economic catastrophe that resulted in deflation, where they then spin it to blame all the bad things that happened on the deflation rather than the catastrophe.
Lower prices isnt bad. Period.
I don't believe you. Short positions are a bitch to get
Thanks for immediately letting us know that you have nothing of value to add.
Yup, there's that too. Still, however, if you get your health insurance without any subsidy, the IRS only need to know that you have it.
Why didnt you address the part in his post which refutes what you are now saying? Seems like you large amount of intellectual dishonesty on your part. (why so dishonest? is it that you are uninformed and don't realize just how dishonest you are being?) You have to have the right kind of health insurance. Many people had plans much more responsible than so called qualified plans, that dont qualify.
When I was growing up the plans were called Major Medical, and later on they were re-tokened High Deductible. They are cheaper and cover more of the things that insurance is for, which is preventing a financial catastrophe. They exclude the middle man from routine expenses like yearly physicals and teeth cleanings, making those activities cheaper as well.
But no... you want to dishonestly defend the ACA like its a good thing when clearly a good thing would encourage Major Medical, rather than declare it unqualified.
thats it, would have cost next to nothing to the people, and would accomplish the only good thing that obamacare has going for it.
probably a few of them would not be ABLE to get ANY healthcare if they had 'pre-existing' conditions.
How come the supporters of PelosiCare don't know the difference between health insurance and health care?
I'm asking you because you appear to be an expert at not knowing the difference.
I'm missing something here how does making p2p use local nodes violate net neutrality?
The "making" part. Are you stupid?
How does this violate Net Neutrality exactly?
The ISP discriminates against sources not on its network. Not sure why you dont understand that this as a violation of net neutrality... perhaps because you want faster torrents...
Peering arrangements are focused largely on improving performance, similar to what this patent describes.
The patent doesnt describe a peering arrangement.
Saying this violates Net Neutrality opens to the door to scrutinize pretty much the backbone of how the internet functions today.
Well, thats exactly what net neutrality does. It opens the door, and you have been told already that it does. Bureaucrats will be deciding these things now. Thanks for letting this happen.
Hard to swallow, but it violates net neutrality.
We supposedly dont want any preferential treatment of any traffic....
A really superior chess engine might get 0.1 points advantage in every pair of moves, and after 30 moves you haven't got a chance. But we are talking here about blunders with 2.0 points disadvantage in one move.
I've spent years following the TCEC and watching Crafty get demolished again and again and again, and its never via the slow 0.1 grind that you are imagining. You are talking out your ass right now.
Crafty regularly (*almost every game*) makes blunders giving what the top engines see as +3 pawns and higher advantage. It then often takes crafty several more moves to finally see that its lost, and then it regularly mis-evaluates that as even worse than it really is (because its failure to see goes both ways.)
Drunk drivers run through stop signs.
High drivers wait for the stop signs to turn green.
I think the big problem is that a "mistake" is being defined so crudely.
Crafty, the engine he used is rated 2825
Stockfish, (arguably) the best engine available (and its open source) is rated 3390
So by his own research numbers the engine he used for his blunder analysis blunders about twice as often as the free Stockfish which he could have used.
mod parent +1 definitive
Depth charges dropped from a plane
A submarine without stealth is an expensive missile boat.
The FDA should have it's scope limited somewhat, focusing more on purity of things is regulates and less on effectiveness and uses.
Prior to 1962 the FDA only required proof of safety before a drug could be sold and marketed. The mandate was changed in 1962 to include efficacy, and the excuse for doing so were the birth defects caused by thalidomide in Europe. Note that thalidomide was quite effective, but not safe, which is why the FDA already didn't allow it to be marketed or sold in the United States. The FDA pounded its own chest and asked congress for more control even though it didn't need it to prevent thalidomide birth defects in the States, and thus congress passed the Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendment.
Thats it right there. Before 1962 the FDA didn't care about efficacy. After 1962 it did, and all because the FDA's safety mandate was good enough.
So its not culture as you claimed?
You have made two very big posts refuting your first post, while also trying to desperately refute mine.
Mixed bag. Success and failure.
A group of people rigs the game to the where where they have a stranglehold, to the detriment of ALL others. That same group (or their progeny) then cries that those not-so-fairly won advantages shouldn't be taken away for the sake of the industry ...and themselves.
In this case, the group is the misogynist nerds.
Their power and influence is legendary, especially their power to discriminate against women.
I have an idea. Think about things before you say them. Then we will get less of this bullshit from your kind.... the kind that finds victims to feel good about defending literally everywhere. I dont have to use the label. Everyone knows it.
by what they can do for that group.
So you agree that men define themselves by their actions....
Why is it more acceptable now
Thats the problem right there. People think that if engagement in a particular activity by gender is changing over time, that its because of some nebulous hand-wavy idea like it being "acceptable now."