They are not claiming to know anything about women or dating. They are using technology, software, and algorithms to solve a task, which is in the skill set of Microsoft and Nerds.
Also this has nothing to do with knowing anything about women. If physical appearance or the facsimile of an appearance is the criteria, this is nothing but an exercise dealing with information/data. Any knowledge in regards to women as a human being is trivia in that regards.
If you used a pencil or pen to write in the answer on the screen of your Franklin Computer...then I think you have bigger problems than conceptual math. Cue blonde on computer jokes. Otherwise what problem does having a ? have in regards to writing in the space that the ? is occupying on a computer screen?
And on another post, I stated ?, __ and squares were additional place holders used along with ( ) prior to algebra.
And if your algebra teaching tool used ? instead of a letter variable, which I do not believe algebra does; then the programmers had it wrong. Or maybe...it wasn't algebra but basic mathematics which does use ? as a symbol.
No, x is used in "algebra" or further. x does not exist in lower grade mathematics. A blank space depicted in a variety of ways, is what is used prior to algebra.
I'm surprised, a study regarding the UK's abhorrent math standards gave me the understanding that students would be lucky to graduate high school with calculus, let alone have algebra in Middle School.
It's also the older generation's fault, with the lowered expectations. When I was working on the register, I could do change in my head. Once, my supervisor saw me not look at the screen to hand back the change and said, why I didn't wait to check the screen. I said that it was simple short subtraction. They said I had to give back change only after I look at the screen.
So I blame Bush and his no-child is left behind for lowering the bar.
It's not a trick question. I've seen it before, and I understood it the first time I saw it.
The problem isn't the fact they used odd notions that others assume incorrectly. Instead of ( ), I've also seen the use of an empty box, underline as someone else noted, ?, circles, etc.
IQ tests often use "something is missing, please complete", problems. Cognitive theory has it that the brain does not process information straight forward, it takes pieces of what it sees and reconstructs it. That's why we can understand misspelled words, geometric shapes with broken lines, and why visual tricks work on our brain. Understand broken English sentences.
The problem is students are growing up lacking in critical thinking skills. When left with a blank or a void, their minds fail to fill it in properly.
We're heading into a generation that can't understand things unless it's spelled out for them and that is a shame. And if you really have a BS in CS and genuinely could not understand the problem listed above, rather than stubbornly proving a point, then that is very sad indeed.
wow, if somebody makes it through all that unwelcoming signs and shows up on my doorstep, I would be very inclined to shoot first and ask questions second. Especially with a neighbor with a history of behavior like NK.// Gun wielding homeowner: how'd you get in here, where's my dog. Intruder: he won't be bothering us. *Homeowner puts one into the intruder's forehead Homeowner: I loved that dog.
Uhm....if you can't identify an intruder in a location where they should be nobody. Why would you not KOS? It's that sort of hesitation that puts your robot / people at risk and why Afghan and Iraq suicide bombers and hiding in plain sight works so well. They cannot have a KOS DMZ. But NK and SK? I'm surprised there aren't automated sentry guns, barb wire fencing, huge ditches, tall walls, flood lights, and a special "nuke" drop in case all shit hits the fan.
Not the interest of the nation, though that would be great in ideal.
An ambitious totalitarian wants a legacy, wants to build a dynasty, wants the heir to carry on and continue the work to make the greatest dynasty in history.
They're going to care about corruption in the lower ranks. Going to care if the country isn't optimal or efficient. Going to care if the dynasty isn't being fulfilled.
There is selfish and self-centered. The self-centered internalizes one's priority, one's interests, one's thoughts. However a self-centered does not have to step on others, steal, harm, to get what they want if they have honor and their own sense of morals. A selfish is someone who is self-centered but varying degrees of lack of morals. They'd take from others to feed their own desires. That's where greed and sociopathy comes into place.
So yeah, a dictator, who's merely self-centered and the interests of the nation's growth fulfills his self-interest. Things would probably go okay.
Re:Unethical is not the word
on
Plagiarism Inc.
·
· Score: 1
Granted, if the unsubstantiated complaints from former employees are true, then he was dishonest about it. The article writes him out to be a con artist.
The business practice of ghostwriting papers that could be then used for unethical purposes, which is what he compared to strip clubs, is not being dishonest. He didn't compare himself to strip club owners, who can probably be as sleazy as him.
If the other evidence of him falsifying facts is true, he sounds like a real con artist.
Re:Unethical is not the word
on
Plagiarism Inc.
·
· Score: 1
Ok, strip clubs are not even in contention of being 'unethical'. They are in contention of being 'immoral'. Morality is narrowly construed precepts of right and wrong based on smaller groups while ethics delve in broad ranges.
I hardly see what he is doing as dishonest either. He "honestly" provides a ghostwriting service and backs up it's quality. The people who are dishonest is the students paying for the service to pass the work off as their own.
That's like saying arms-dealers are dishonest, for the only fact that people use those weapons to kill. (They can be dishonest, but for other reasons).
Also you don't have to be good or educated in the business to be a good businessman. Personal quality check goes out the window in that case.
Why should a grieving war widow be allowed special consideration over the rest of us regular civilians. Aren't we all deserving to be treated equal under the law? If my father died in the war, should my student loans magically be forgiven because I'm grieving? Or maybe I should demand free food handouts for awhile? Should a mortgage be forgiven because the primary breadwinner suddenly dies? Bad news, you lost your spouse, good news, free money!
The contract is to subsidize a LOWER cost for her phone which she pays for over time. If she didn't want the contract, she could sometime pay the extra $300 - $500 up front for the phone. Early termination fee stops people from canceling the contract and making off with a phone they didn't pay for.
I agree though a $350 early termination fee was ridiculous. Generally ETF decline over the course of the contract. Perhaps she had recently bought an expensive phone.
Now as far as contracts go. Contracts end when YOU die. Why should a contract end when someone ELSE dies. This wasn't the husband's phone. The pro-widow news site stated it was the WIDOW's phone. His death has nothing to do with the contract, except for the fact she decided to move to a no-coverage area.
I won't even get into the flamebait the news site said about him defending our country.
Verizon has since reversed their automatic policy and let her off the hook. Could it have been done sooner? Maybe. But charity is charity. You can't demand charity on your own timeline. So what's the problem? Where's the news?
"Major business has simple policies in place to protect business profitability. Lowly paid minions aren't hired to make decisions nor paid enough to take responsibility for decisions. Customer flails arm at lowly paid minion repeating from a script instead of talking to someone with authority"
Really? And just what are your qualifications into philosophy? human rights? ethics? Jurispudence? History? Theology? Geology? Physics? Statistics? Sociology? Psychology? Got like half a dozen Ph. D's there?
Do you support death penalty? Animal Testing? Human Testing? Cloning? Using the sun for disposal of wastes? LHC? Abortion? Privacy vs Security? Euthanasia? Removal of Religion from the mandatory and public funded schools? Religious influence from Law? Social Services? Offshore drilling? Destroying Nature Reserves?
Should we have all laws passed by multiple Ph.D holders in selected fields who have little to no sense of humanity, only cold logic and rationale?
I don't care enough about any of that to educate myself.
It's not up to me to decide what's legally right or ethically right or morally right, which is different.
Hell, I would be willing to consider cloning body parts if it was possible to be worthwhile.
I would be willing to consider genetic manipulation to eliminate genetic disorders to be worthwhile.
I would even be willing to consider genetic cloning of super soldiers to be worthwhile.
But I am not in a position intellectually to say what is or is not best for society. And hell, our politicians probably are not either, though they have the responsibility and obligation to do so properly.
But I do know, you pass laws restricting things BEFORE someone does it, if you want it kept from being done. Not sweep it away because people think it's not possible yet.
On your question specifically. I'm torn between natural selection and humanitarianism. I truly believe at some point, letting nature take its course is for the best. I would not want to be a vegetable on a machine. I would not want to spend hundred of millions to extend my life another month. The question is, where to draw the line, and luckily, that is also not my worry.
Reminds me of two sayings.
1. "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi
2. Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds? Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds? Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?! Churchill: Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
They are there to punish. Without laws, you can't punish people for doing something society deems wrong.
And yes.....they SHOULD ban zombies since zombies are popularly created by bio-warfare gone wrong. And there are international treaties against bio-warfare. Since zombie rampage IS an apocalyptic event...all good efforts should be put to preventing it.
When is the time to pass laws prohibiting people from doing bad things? After someone does it already and he gets a freebie cause oh well it's not against the law YET.
Genetic manipulation, chimera, and cloning aren't out of the realm of scientific possibility.
Hell, they ARE working on cloaking devices and disruptors.
It's not always about ignorance or willful ignorance, or plain ol' stupidity.
Sometimes it's about holding off the potential problem until you empty the coffers then run off, leaving someone else to hold the bag or pick up the check.
That is capitalism, and it's been rampant with CEO's and upper management over the years. We have had CEO's running companies into the ground, pulling out outrageous bonuses, and paying stockholders to shore up the illusion and then run off after.
Slashdot Mirror
They are not claiming to know anything about women or dating. They are using technology, software, and algorithms to solve a task, which is in the skill set of Microsoft and Nerds.
Also this has nothing to do with knowing anything about women. If physical appearance or the facsimile of an appearance is the criteria, this is nothing but an exercise dealing with information/data. Any knowledge in regards to women as a human being is trivia in that regards.
“Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be religious people.” by Dr. Gregory House
Besides the fact they simply don't teach basic algebra in school that early.
If you used a pencil or pen to write in the answer on the screen of your Franklin Computer...then I think you have bigger problems than conceptual math. Cue blonde on computer jokes. Otherwise what problem does having a ? have in regards to writing in the space that the ? is occupying on a computer screen?
And on another post, I stated ?, __ and squares were additional place holders used along with ( ) prior to algebra.
And if your algebra teaching tool used ? instead of a letter variable, which I do not believe algebra does; then the programmers had it wrong. Or maybe...it wasn't algebra but basic mathematics which does use ? as a symbol.
No, x is used in "algebra" or further. x does not exist in lower grade mathematics. A blank space depicted in a variety of ways, is what is used prior to algebra.
I'm surprised, a study regarding the UK's abhorrent math standards gave me the understanding that students would be lucky to graduate high school with calculus, let alone have algebra in Middle School.
Calculators are allowed in universities now. Hell we even have sophisticated math solving programs. Mine was "Maple".
It's also the older generation's fault, with the lowered expectations. When I was working on the register, I could do change in my head. Once, my supervisor saw me not look at the screen to hand back the change and said, why I didn't wait to check the screen. I said that it was simple short subtraction. They said I had to give back change only after I look at the screen.
So I blame Bush and his no-child is left behind for lowering the bar.
x is used in algebra, minimum. Mathematics prior to algebra use the concept of a void or a space missing.
If you have a ?, how do you write in the answer? Underneath the ? or above it or squeeze in the side?
Text books often use __, squares, and ( ) so people have a visual clue that something belongs there, before the concept of algebra sinks in.
It's not a trick question. I've seen it before, and I understood it the first time I saw it.
The problem isn't the fact they used odd notions that others assume incorrectly. Instead of ( ), I've also seen the use of an empty box, underline as someone else noted, ?, circles, etc.
IQ tests often use "something is missing, please complete", problems. Cognitive theory has it that the brain does not process information straight forward, it takes pieces of what it sees and reconstructs it. That's why we can understand misspelled words, geometric shapes with broken lines, and why visual tricks work on our brain. Understand broken English sentences.
The problem is students are growing up lacking in critical thinking skills. When left with a blank or a void, their minds fail to fill it in properly.
We're heading into a generation that can't understand things unless it's spelled out for them and that is a shame. And if you really have a BS in CS and genuinely could not understand the problem listed above, rather than stubbornly proving a point, then that is very sad indeed.
wow, if somebody makes it through all that unwelcoming signs and shows up on my doorstep, I would be very inclined to shoot first and ask questions second. Especially with a neighbor with a history of behavior like NK. //
Gun wielding homeowner: how'd you get in here, where's my dog.
Intruder: he won't be bothering us.
*Homeowner puts one into the intruder's forehead
Homeowner: I loved that dog.
Uhm....if you can't identify an intruder in a location where they should be nobody. Why would you not KOS? It's that sort of hesitation that puts your robot / people at risk and why Afghan and Iraq suicide bombers and hiding in plain sight works so well. They cannot have a KOS DMZ. But NK and SK? I'm surprised there aren't automated sentry guns, barb wire fencing, huge ditches, tall walls, flood lights, and a special "nuke" drop in case all shit hits the fan.
Not the interest of the nation, though that would be great in ideal.
An ambitious totalitarian wants a legacy, wants to build a dynasty, wants the heir to carry on and continue the work to make the greatest dynasty in history.
They're going to care about corruption in the lower ranks. Going to care if the country isn't optimal or efficient. Going to care if the dynasty isn't being fulfilled.
There is selfish and self-centered. The self-centered internalizes one's priority, one's interests, one's thoughts. However a self-centered does not have to step on others, steal, harm, to get what they want if they have honor and their own sense of morals. A selfish is someone who is self-centered but varying degrees of lack of morals. They'd take from others to feed their own desires. That's where greed and sociopathy comes into place.
So yeah, a dictator, who's merely self-centered and the interests of the nation's growth fulfills his self-interest. Things would probably go okay.
Granted, if the unsubstantiated complaints from former employees are true, then he was dishonest about it. The article writes him out to be a con artist.
The business practice of ghostwriting papers that could be then used for unethical purposes, which is what he compared to strip clubs, is not being dishonest. He didn't compare himself to strip club owners, who can probably be as sleazy as him.
If the other evidence of him falsifying facts is true, he sounds like a real con artist.
Ok, strip clubs are not even in contention of being 'unethical'. They are in contention of being 'immoral'. Morality is narrowly construed precepts of right and wrong based on smaller groups while ethics delve in broad ranges.
I hardly see what he is doing as dishonest either. He "honestly" provides a ghostwriting service and backs up it's quality. The people who are dishonest is the students paying for the service to pass the work off as their own.
That's like saying arms-dealers are dishonest, for the only fact that people use those weapons to kill. (They can be dishonest, but for other reasons).
Also you don't have to be good or educated in the business to be a good businessman. Personal quality check goes out the window in that case.
That's because AT&T coverage sucks. They don't want that constantly paraded in the news so they have policy in place to deal with it.
Since when would a corporation ever want to risk their life, let alone give their life for their country?
Your second statement is void.
Besides in America, Corporations can act with impunity any time.
Why should a grieving war widow be allowed special consideration over the rest of us regular civilians. Aren't we all deserving to be treated equal under the law? If my father died in the war, should my student loans magically be forgiven because I'm grieving? Or maybe I should demand free food handouts for awhile? Should a mortgage be forgiven because the primary breadwinner suddenly dies? Bad news, you lost your spouse, good news, free money!
The contract is to subsidize a LOWER cost for her phone which she pays for over time. If she didn't want the contract, she could sometime pay the extra $300 - $500 up front for the phone. Early termination fee stops people from canceling the contract and making off with a phone they didn't pay for.
I agree though a $350 early termination fee was ridiculous. Generally ETF decline over the course of the contract. Perhaps she had recently bought an expensive phone.
Now as far as contracts go. Contracts end when YOU die. Why should a contract end when someone ELSE dies. This wasn't the husband's phone. The pro-widow news site stated it was the WIDOW's phone. His death has nothing to do with the contract, except for the fact she decided to move to a no-coverage area.
I won't even get into the flamebait the news site said about him defending our country.
Verizon has since reversed their automatic policy and let her off the hook. Could it have been done sooner? Maybe. But charity is charity. You can't demand charity on your own timeline. So what's the problem? Where's the news?
"Major business has simple policies in place to protect business profitability. Lowly paid minions aren't hired to make decisions nor paid enough to take responsibility for decisions. Customer flails arm at lowly paid minion repeating from a script instead of talking to someone with authority"
Yeah, how novel.
As opposed to the US, when you see a woman dressed like a hooker, she may or may not be one?
Really? And just what are your qualifications into philosophy? human rights? ethics? Jurispudence? History? Theology? Geology? Physics? Statistics? Sociology? Psychology? Got like half a dozen Ph. D's there?
Do you support death penalty? Animal Testing? Human Testing? Cloning? Using the sun for disposal of wastes? LHC? Abortion? Privacy vs Security? Euthanasia? Removal of Religion from the mandatory and public funded schools? Religious influence from Law? Social Services? Offshore drilling? Destroying Nature Reserves?
Should we have all laws passed by multiple Ph.D holders in selected fields who have little to no sense of humanity, only cold logic and rationale?
I don't care enough about any of that to educate myself.
It's not up to me to decide what's legally right or ethically right or morally right, which is different.
Hell, I would be willing to consider cloning body parts if it was possible to be worthwhile.
I would be willing to consider genetic manipulation to eliminate genetic disorders to be worthwhile.
I would even be willing to consider genetic cloning of super soldiers to be worthwhile.
But I am not in a position intellectually to say what is or is not best for society. And hell, our politicians probably are not either, though they have the responsibility and obligation to do so properly.
But I do know, you pass laws restricting things BEFORE someone does it, if you want it kept from being done. Not sweep it away because people think it's not possible yet.
On your question specifically. I'm torn between natural selection and humanitarianism. I truly believe at some point, letting nature take its course is for the best. I would not want to be a vegetable on a machine. I would not want to spend hundred of millions to extend my life another month. The question is, where to draw the line, and luckily, that is also not my worry.
Reminds me of two sayings.
1. "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi
2. Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course...
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
Though Jack Sparrow stole this line.
Laws aren't only there for prevention.
They are there to punish. Without laws, you can't punish people for doing something society deems wrong.
And yes.....they SHOULD ban zombies since zombies are popularly created by bio-warfare gone wrong. And there are international treaties against bio-warfare. Since zombie rampage IS an apocalyptic event...all good efforts should be put to preventing it.
When is the time to pass laws prohibiting people from doing bad things? After someone does it already and he gets a freebie cause oh well it's not against the law YET.
Genetic manipulation, chimera, and cloning aren't out of the realm of scientific possibility.
Hell, they ARE working on cloaking devices and disruptors.
It's not always about ignorance or willful ignorance, or plain ol' stupidity.
Sometimes it's about holding off the potential problem until you empty the coffers then run off, leaving someone else to hold the bag or pick up the check.
That is capitalism, and it's been rampant with CEO's and upper management over the years. We have had CEO's running companies into the ground, pulling out outrageous bonuses, and paying stockholders to shore up the illusion and then run off after.
Why is this a surprise?
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, or at least temporarily.
They both have a common goal, to screw over the citizens and their sheer disdain for anyone who doesn't have the power to influence them.
Therefore it makes perfect sense that since helping the citizens doesn't make sense to team up, but screwing the citizens does.
I like both Hanlon's Razor and Occam's Razor, but in this case, we should be looking at Occam's Razor.