A simpler route, but one that would be easier for bots to break, is to just have the user check a box by each of the three items shown. This is easier because the bot can just do random selections and get about 10% through.
As is, random guessing would be right about 0.14% of the time. If you made that change, it would be about 1.2%
Of course, they could always add another picture and make the arrays slightly larger.
The funny thing about "correlation is not causation" is that "causation requires correlation". If you claim that X causes Y and you have millions of X and not one single Y, you're going to have some explaining to do.
No. If there is a negative correlation that is not causation, it can mask a positive correlation that is. I'm not saying that that applies in this circumstance, just that your argument is flawed.
It's also interesting (I guess this makes #3) to point out that not allowing gay marriage doesn't mean gays can't live together; it means the government doesn't recognize it as a marriage. Which is, by this time, almost a name-only thing.
You won't be allowed to see your same-sex partner in the hospital dying, because you're not "family"...
You're not entitled to any kind of partner benefits (e.g. insurance of any kind) because you're not "family"...
You're forced to live different from other people because you don't obey a certain religious belief. That's the textbook definition of religious discrimination and anyone ought to be able to see that it's a violation of the constitution.
I know the [Heisenberg uncertainty] principle basically says that when you measure (take pictures of?) the atom that you're moving it in some small unknown way
This is a common misconception. What you just mentioned was the observer effect. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the upper limit to the accuracy of the position of a system times the accuracy of the momentum of the system will not exceed Planck's constant. It was originally believed to be related to the observer effect, until they found ways to make multiple particles with the same property. You could then measure the speed of one and the position of the other. Knowing they both have the same speed, you'd have both the speed and the position of the second.
Although it has been proven that there's no algorithm guaranteed to be able to prove, disprove, or prove unsolvable a given conjecture, or even to show weather or not it's provable, that applies to humans as much as to computers. That being said, humans aren't going to be obsolete in this matter, and will probably be much better than computers for a very, very long time.
The difference is that I am in control of the car (most of the time, anyway).
The other difference is that you're on a road full of other cars. The Earth has an area of 510,072,000 km^2. There is a human population of about 6,700,000,000. That's about 13 people every square kilometer, or one person ever 76000 square meters. NASA does much more damage than this is expected to do just by wasting money. If you don't think that kills anyone, I'd like to point out that there's a strong correlation between lifespan and income.
The pattern we have always seen is new technology always leads to new ways to excuse the killing of civilians and other inhumane acts. If a man with a sword sticks it through an innocent kid, everyone would agree a war crime has been committed, if a man with a gun shoots the kid, some people will be willing to accept it's an accident, the kid was caught in the crossfire, stray bullet, if the man drops a bomb on the kid from a plane, it's just collateral damage, unavoidable, certainly not the pilots fault. If he does it from hundred of miles away with a robot, fuck knows, he'll probably get a medal or something.
If someone sticks a sword through a kid, the people that find out about it would think it's a war crime. Considering the way information spread, or rather, didn't, when swords were common, that wasn't very many. Vastly more people currently consider killing anyone in a war a war-crime.
If a kid is caught in the crossfire, it is an accident. Nobody's going to target anyone but the enemy while under fire. Bombing civilians is a high-up decision, and is unrelated to a single soldier that goes on a killing-spree.
Whether the death is caused by the robot or the soldier, it's still caused by something from the US. Considering one can have safety features added, has no mind of its own, and is new and therefore scary, which killer would be more embarrassing? Besides, people would be a lot less likely to shoot if they knew they were going to get caught, so this is like 10 deaths from a soldier vs hundreds from robots.
Point a camera at the keyboard controlling the robot. If they can actually see you press the shoot button, you can't just say it was bug. Besides, even if they can't be convicted, you can still show they probably did it and sue them for wrongful death.
What's with you people? I don't know if Obama is a creationist, but he believes in an omnipotent god that is quite capable of creating life and making it look like it evolved. What does believing in creationism have to do with being a vice-president anyway? If you're worried about her ignoring evidence, I think there will be plenty of people willing to point out times where any given politician ignored strong evidence that was actually relevant to what they were doing.
The Republican Party wants to privatize Social Security (along with every other function of government).
Really? They aren't doing too well. People say the Republicans want a smaller government, but grows just as fast no matter who's in charge.
There may still be some of you who think that the FDA, the FCC, the FDIC, the military, national security, FEMA, etc are better off with profit-driven entities in charge, and that destroying the ability of workers to bargain collectively will help our standard of living, but I think a picture is starting to emerge of where this "free market rules" thinking is taking us. And it's an ugly place.
So the falling economy is due to becoming less socialist? The whole spending huge amounts of money in Iraq has nothing to do with it? Whatever the problems, the profit motive is worse than no motive. It even tends to work where it looks like it won't, for example: if the FDA was privatized and it didn't keep its approval strict enough, people would stop caring if it's FDA approved and start looking for approval of a stricter competitor. Pharmacies wouldn't bother getting anything FDA approved because nobody would care if it is. If the FDA charged to much, pharmacies would use a cheaper competitor, and people would buy them just as much.
If there should ever be an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this private army is going to come home. How do you think they're going to feel about going to work as shopping mall security guards?
Probably the same way the public army (or whatever you call it) will feel.
One of the two political parties in this country is absolutely hell-bent on the destruction of our government (by their own admission).
As I've already pointed out, weather or not they say they want to get rid of government, they don't.
This weekend we saw what happens when there is little or no regulation of the financial industry.
I don't know what you're talking about (as in I'm ignorant, not I don't believe you), but if they changed anything significant, good or bad, it's going to cause short-term problems. IIRC, there was a change in China's laws a while back to discourage day-trading. It made the stock market prices drop a few percent for a few days.
We cannot let a man who has been so cozy with the corporate lobbyists become president again.
You mean a politician? Or are there ones that ignore lobbyists?
Being a top Constitutional scholar may not automatically make you Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt, but it's a d*** site better than what his opponents offer in the way of qualification.
Experience? I'm not saying Obama doesn't have any experience, but then again, you're not saying that McCain doesn't have any education.
I don't know about politicians in general, but in order to get past the primaries you have to act as a representative of your party, since that's who will be voting for you, and in order to win the election you have to act as a representative of the country, as that's who will be voting for you. It might be possible to make it look like you went from, say, republican to middle ground without actually saying anything you won't do, but just the general shift itself can probably be considered a lie. Therefore, in order to become president (or even governor of a sufficiently middle ground state) you must be a liar. QED
The idea here is to use measurements that people are familiar with. There are obviously more people who know the city of Bristol well enough to know the area it covers than there are people who have seen a meter stick.
She supports the Iraq war and the pipeline because she thinks they're a good thing. She, along with all members of western religion, believes god to be omnibenevolent. In other words, if it's a good thing then it must be god's will.
It says a Trichoplax shares 80% of its DNA with humanity. Humans have 3 billion base pairs, and Trichoplaxes have 98 million. Thus, humans only share (9,800,000*80%)/3,000,000,000=2.6% of their DNA with a Trichoplax.
Assuming you're not littering, and you're in a first-world country, it's going to be sitting in the ground until it breaks down. I don't think that's anywhere near thousands of years, and even if it is, so what? If they're dangerous, why would people build on top of many of them?
Slashdot Mirror
Project a movie or an e-book on your ceiling. No more tired arms from holding books up. I'm getting one of these babies!
Obligatory xkcd link. The blag is still xkcd, right?
A simpler route, but one that would be easier for bots to break, is to just have the user check a box by each of the three items shown. This is easier because the bot can just do random selections and get about 10% through.
As is, random guessing would be right about 0.14% of the time. If you made that change, it would be about 1.2% Of course, they could always add another picture and make the arrays slightly larger.
With a supposed separation of church and state, a religious belief should not influence lawmaking...
The first amendment prevents lawmaking from influencing religious beliefs, not the other way around.
The funny thing about "correlation is not causation" is that "causation requires correlation". If you claim that X causes Y and you have millions of X and not one single Y, you're going to have some explaining to do.
No. If there is a negative correlation that is not causation, it can mask a positive correlation that is. I'm not saying that that applies in this circumstance, just that your argument is flawed.
It's also interesting (I guess this makes #3) to point out that not allowing gay marriage doesn't mean gays can't live together; it means the government doesn't recognize it as a marriage. Which is, by this time, almost a name-only thing.
You won't be allowed to see your same-sex partner in the hospital dying, because you're not "family"...
You're not entitled to any kind of partner benefits (e.g. insurance of any kind) because you're not "family"...
You're forced to live different from other people because you don't obey a certain religious belief. That's the textbook definition of religious discrimination and anyone ought to be able to see that it's a violation of the constitution.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 See section 297.5 . It is, indeed, a name-only thing.
I know the [Heisenberg uncertainty] principle basically says that when you measure (take pictures of?) the atom that you're moving it in some small unknown way
This is a common misconception. What you just mentioned was the observer effect. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the upper limit to the accuracy of the position of a system times the accuracy of the momentum of the system will not exceed Planck's constant. It was originally believed to be related to the observer effect, until they found ways to make multiple particles with the same property. You could then measure the speed of one and the position of the other. Knowing they both have the same speed, you'd have both the speed and the position of the second.
If only ideals were edible we wouldn't have this problem.
We would after they all get eaten.
Although it has been proven that there's no algorithm guaranteed to be able to prove, disprove, or prove unsolvable a given conjecture, or even to show weather or not it's provable, that applies to humans as much as to computers. That being said, humans aren't going to be obsolete in this matter, and will probably be much better than computers for a very, very long time.
510,072,000 km^2 is including the ocean.
The difference is that I am in control of the car (most of the time, anyway).
The other difference is that you're on a road full of other cars. The Earth has an area of 510,072,000 km^2. There is a human population of about 6,700,000,000. That's about 13 people every square kilometer, or one person ever 76000 square meters. NASA does much more damage than this is expected to do just by wasting money. If you don't think that kills anyone, I'd like to point out that there's a strong correlation between lifespan and income.
The pattern we have always seen is new technology always leads to new ways to excuse the killing of civilians and other inhumane acts. If a man with a sword sticks it through an innocent kid, everyone would agree a war crime has been committed, if a man with a gun shoots the kid, some people will be willing to accept it's an accident, the kid was caught in the crossfire, stray bullet, if the man drops a bomb on the kid from a plane, it's just collateral damage, unavoidable, certainly not the pilots fault. If he does it from hundred of miles away with a robot, fuck knows, he'll probably get a medal or something.
If someone sticks a sword through a kid, the people that find out about it would think it's a war crime. Considering the way information spread, or rather, didn't, when swords were common, that wasn't very many. Vastly more people currently consider killing anyone in a war a war-crime.
If a kid is caught in the crossfire, it is an accident. Nobody's going to target anyone but the enemy while under fire. Bombing civilians is a high-up decision, and is unrelated to a single soldier that goes on a killing-spree.
Whether the death is caused by the robot or the soldier, it's still caused by something from the US. Considering one can have safety features added, has no mind of its own, and is new and therefore scary, which killer would be more embarrassing? Besides, people would be a lot less likely to shoot if they knew they were going to get caught, so this is like 10 deaths from a soldier vs hundreds from robots.
Do you mean like forks like Wikinfo, or unrelated, but similar, sites like Everything2, h2g2 and Knol?
Point a camera at the keyboard controlling the robot. If they can actually see you press the shoot button, you can't just say it was bug. Besides, even if they can't be convicted, you can still show they probably did it and sue them for wrongful death.
...someone who belives in creationism...
What's with you people? I don't know if Obama is a creationist, but he believes in an omnipotent god that is quite capable of creating life and making it look like it evolved. What does believing in creationism have to do with being a vice-president anyway? If you're worried about her ignoring evidence, I think there will be plenty of people willing to point out times where any given politician ignored strong evidence that was actually relevant to what they were doing.
That's how it used to be in the past, during the years of wild capitalism.
Did you have to pay to cancel?
The Republican Party wants to privatize Social Security (along with every other function of government).
Really? They aren't doing too well. People say the Republicans want a smaller government, but grows just as fast no matter who's in charge.
There may still be some of you who think that the FDA, the FCC, the FDIC, the military, national security, FEMA, etc are better off with profit-driven entities in charge, and that destroying the ability of workers to bargain collectively will help our standard of living, but I think a picture is starting to emerge of where this "free market rules" thinking is taking us. And it's an ugly place.
So the falling economy is due to becoming less socialist? The whole spending huge amounts of money in Iraq has nothing to do with it? Whatever the problems, the profit motive is worse than no motive. It even tends to work where it looks like it won't, for example: if the FDA was privatized and it didn't keep its approval strict enough, people would stop caring if it's FDA approved and start looking for approval of a stricter competitor. Pharmacies wouldn't bother getting anything FDA approved because nobody would care if it is. If the FDA charged to much, pharmacies would use a cheaper competitor, and people would buy them just as much.
If there should ever be an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this private army is going to come home. How do you think they're going to feel about going to work as shopping mall security guards?
Probably the same way the public army (or whatever you call it) will feel.
One of the two political parties in this country is absolutely hell-bent on the destruction of our government (by their own admission).
As I've already pointed out, weather or not they say they want to get rid of government, they don't.
This weekend we saw what happens when there is little or no regulation of the financial industry.
I don't know what you're talking about (as in I'm ignorant, not I don't believe you), but if they changed anything significant, good or bad, it's going to cause short-term problems. IIRC, there was a change in China's laws a while back to discourage day-trading. It made the stock market prices drop a few percent for a few days.
We cannot let a man who has been so cozy with the corporate lobbyists become president again.
You mean a politician? Or are there ones that ignore lobbyists?
Being a top Constitutional scholar may not automatically make you Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt, but it's a d*** site better than what his opponents offer in the way of qualification.
Experience? I'm not saying Obama doesn't have any experience, but then again, you're not saying that McCain doesn't have any education.
I don't know about politicians in general, but in order to get past the primaries you have to act as a representative of your party, since that's who will be voting for you, and in order to win the election you have to act as a representative of the country, as that's who will be voting for you. It might be possible to make it look like you went from, say, republican to middle ground without actually saying anything you won't do, but just the general shift itself can probably be considered a lie. Therefore, in order to become president (or even governor of a sufficiently middle ground state) you must be a liar. QED
We trust buffet restaurants even though someone could put crushed glass into the food.
That wouldn't matter.
The idea here is to use measurements that people are familiar with. There are obviously more people who know the city of Bristol well enough to know the area it covers than there are people who have seen a meter stick.
Did she say God was talking directly to her?
She supports the Iraq war and the pipeline because she thinks they're a good thing. She, along with all members of western religion, believes god to be omnibenevolent. In other words, if it's a good thing then it must be god's will.
... you will also fail 1 in 20 times that you don't even try.
Wait, so if you don't try, you'll probably succeed?
It says a Trichoplax shares 80% of its DNA with humanity. Humans have 3 billion base pairs, and Trichoplaxes have 98 million. Thus, humans only share (9,800,000*80%)/3,000,000,000=2.6% of their DNA with a Trichoplax.
Can't you just start an empty ballot party, and just vote against everything?
Assuming you're not littering, and you're in a first-world country, it's going to be sitting in the ground until it breaks down. I don't think that's anywhere near thousands of years, and even if it is, so what? If they're dangerous, why would people build on top of many of them?
I think the "watching" was recording the controller inputs and the sensor readings.