It seems that the unstated assumption that is made, which may be entirely correct, but still appears to be an assumption,is that Stromeyer's claims about the woman being able to look at two different images 24 hours apart and mentally fuse them into a single one is false. Granted, the lack of reproducibility does lend this assumption some credibility, but why doesn't the article come out and simply say that is what they are assuming instead of dancing around it with a whole bunch of jibber jabber about how memory works?
I think Trump is an ass,, personally... but those comments were made over 10 years ago. Really, the fact that they are being brought up *now* as some kind of excuse to not elect him is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. There are a plethora of things that he is saying right now, or has pledged to do in his first term in office that are problematic enough as a reason to not vote for the guy.... but dredging up a conversation made over a decade ago is just so.... well.... stupid.
Somebody saying that somebody else broke the law, basically for reasons that appear to be nothing beyond the fact that the opportunity for breaking the law was present does not, I'm afraid, constitute court-accepted proof that the latter person actually did do the things they are alleged to have done. At the end of the day, the FBI's investigation into the details of Hillary's unsecured private email server that she used admittedly entirely inappropriately to handle some amount of classified content, they were unable to find anything substantial enough to warrant an actual case against her for any criminal behavior. That doesn't mean she's necessarily innocent of what she's been accused of, but when all is said and done, even if you did go and fucking break every goddamn law there is, if there is no substantive evidence to merit a case against you, in a nation where you are innocent until proven guilty, you go free. Full stop.
Its reasonable to assume that they are NOT that tiny, because we exist.
As shown by the uniqueness of properties specific to particular numbers in the set of real numbers, which is literally infinite in size, the mere existence of something for which no duplicate has been found does not say anything about the probability of its existence elsewhere in even the vastest possible set of interest other than that its probability is non-zero.
As I said... one in a googleplex is non-zero... and that might, for all we know, be the probability the life would arise anywhere. With odds that low, the fact that we are here at all would just be a fortunate happenstance... but the mere even astronomical odds against it happening in such a case would still not preclude it from happening at all... nor even would they preclude it from happening multiple times. All that can be said in such a case is that it would be unlikely. Nothing more.
Right now, all we have is an upper bound on the likelihood of life arising on a planet... based almost entirely on what we know about a sample-size of one, plus the limited observations that we have made of other worlds in our solar system which have not yet found any evidence of life elsewhere. As we find more planets around other stars that appear like they should be hospitable to life, if we should discover that they have none, then we can slowly whittle away at the upper bound some more. But if we ever *do* find life on other planets, then we'll have a clearer picture of what the the lower bound of the probability actually is (right now all we know is that it is non-zero... but even one in 600 quintillion is still non-zero), and from there we will be in a better position to predict how likely life actually is, and even about how many worlds there will be in the universe with life on them.
So. the answer to if there is life elsewhere is not "yes, many times", It's "I don't know, because we haven't found it yet and don't know enough about the actual probability of life existing to come to any conclusions about the probability of life". At best, all we know right now is approximately the likelihood of planets that should be hospitable to life, but this does not dictate that such planets will necessarily have life. Concluding that it is somehow a certainty or even necessarily particularly likely that life elsewhere exists just because we do is simply begging the question.
The size of the numbers is irrelevant if the probabilities are tiny enough. As unimaginably large as the universe might be, we know absolutely nothing about how unimaginably small the chance of life is elsewhere. Life here might have been a one in a googleplex longshot for all we know... and if the odds were indeed that low (and I'm not suggesting that they were) it's actually not at all likely to exist anywhere else (although still not impossible either). My point being that we just don't fucking know shit... and saying *anything* about the actual likelihood of life elsewhere when we still have a sample data size of one is just so much blabbering about what someone might want to think or believe in rather than an intelligent conclusion based on deductive reasoning and observable evidence.
How probable is it that in a quite literally infinite pool of real numbers, there are numbers other than 0 that possess the additive identity property?
My point is not that we are necessarily alone, but that even in an infinite sample size, uniqueness is possible... the universe is unimaginably vast, but still finite. It seems it must be similarly possible, and not even necessarily improbable, that we might be alone as well. We cannot ascertain the actual odds of life existing because we don't know enough about any exoplanets so far discovered that appear to be hospitable to life to know if life actually exists on them or not.
How's that supposed to work? Do you tap into the kinetic energy produced by nodding and generate some material amount of work that you can translate into capital, or what?
Or did they mean to say that you can *authorize* payments just by nodding?
Because that's not at all what the headline, summary, or even the article says.
Words matter. I don't know why people don't just say what they mean instead of making ambiguous statements that don't mean anything sensible.
First of all, please don't presume to know what I would or would not accept. I'm entirely willing to look at the facts, if they are presented to me. However, all I've ever seen from anyone are mere allegations that she committed a crime. It's not a crime to run a private mail server. It *IS* a crime to cause nationally secured documents to be misappropriated, but there's no actual proof that this ever actually happened because of what she did (although I will concede that there is no lack of proof that it *may* have happened). It may even make sense to criminalize what she did, so that other people don't attempt it in the future, but that would be irrelevant to this case. In the end, you can't prosecute somebody for something that they might have done just because they had the opportunity to do so. The most you can do at that point, and deservedly so, is to initiate an investigation to discover if there was actually any wrongdoing. So far, that investigation into Clinton's ill advised activities has yielded no real evidence of actual criminal behavior, and might not ever reveal any evidence of it even if she *did* do something illegal. I'm not saying here that it's okay to break the law if you don't get caught... what I'm saying is that it's certainly *NOT* okay to incarcerate somebody for breaking a law when you don't have the proof that is merited by a court of law to convict them.
I was actually thinking about this last night, and I thought that they could may be add a feature to a game like Pokemon Go that might help save a few of those lives... or at least improve their survivability odds a little bit if they aren't actually watching where they are walking.
The devices have a camera.... so couldn't they use the camera to watch the face of the user playing the game? Using eye-tracking software, they could probably ascertain if the user was looking at the screen at any given instant while the game is on. The idea would be that if the user was moving near speeds that would be associated with foot travel while also looking at the screen without taking breaks at least every 20 to 30 seconds or so to look up, a big textual overlay could appear over the game's UI that says "WATCH WHERE YOU ARE GOING", which would flash for a few seconds, before allowing the user to resume play... and the timer would start again.
Anyways, it was just an idea I had. I dunno for sure if it would even actually work.
Biological needs tend to require breaks about every 4 hours, anyhow.
True... but in that time, travelling on the highway, you are looking at having to recharge your EV more than once. You might do 60 mph on the highway, but having to stop for a half hour every 50 miles or so brings down your net travelling speed to about 33 mph. So in 4 hours you'd cover only a little over 130 miles, compared to the 240 miles you'd have covered in an ICE. Even allowing for a couple of bathroom breaks in that time, you're still looking at 230 miles or more. Because the charging time takes so much longer than refuelling, coupled with the fact that it must be done more than twice as often, you don't end up saving any net time, and certainly can't cover anything close to the same distance in the same period. A long interstate road trip that takes only about 12 to 13 hours in a gasoline car, including pit stops for rest breaks and meals would take more than 20 in an EV, and probably isn't even necessarily viable to finish in one day.
A very cheap and simple solution to that problem [of forgetting to charge the EV at night] is simply to NOT FORGET to plug-in your EV
Obviously... but shit happens. This isn't like running out of gas completely here... this is like expecting to be able to just get up in the morning and go to work whether you forgot to fill up last night or not because *if* you forgot, you might not have enough to make it to work, but you only need to allow yourself whatever extra time you need for the fillup and you're good to go. If you live in an urban area, a suitable gas station won't even be out of your way so it might add 5 minutes to your morning commute. If you forgot to charge your car, and don't have enough of a charge to get to work, because you can't use high-speed charging in your own home without special wiring, you're looking at it being *hours* before your car is practical to drive anywhere. Even if you had such wiring conveniently available, it is still 30 minutes of extra time as opposed to just 5 minutes.
And it isn't even a contrived situation... a *lot* of people don't think to fill up their car at night, after evening commuting hours when the gas prices are typically at their lowest, and most gas stations, at least the ones around where I live, typically exploit this fact among morning commuters, where the price of gas will often jump higher in the morning than it was the night before unless there are mitigating factors that are driving the prices down further. Many people do think to fill up at night... I endeavor to, because over a number of weeks the difference adds up to a fair amount, but I still do forget from time to time.
With an ICE, it just means paying a bit more money when I forget to fill up at night. With an EV, forgetting to charge it at night it means possibly being out of half a day's pay for not getting into work in the morning. Suddenly, gasoline starts to look a whole lot cheaper.
But again... maybe someday, hopefully soon... EV's are gonna get there. But the inconveniences they hold at the present time simply do not outweigh all of their advantages.
Please... if the evidence was that clear, there are people who make more money in one day than both of us put together make in a year that would have been all too happy to prosecute her for the crime.
Negligence isn't itself criminal... negligence that breaks the law is.
The funny thing is, here, that despite all of the allegations and investigation, and even despite how suspicious the whole damn thing looks... there's no real evidence of any actual criminal wrongdoing... because if there were, then she could be, you know, actually charged with a crime.
And I seriously don't think you'd want to live in a country where mere allegations that happened to get repeated often enough got to be used in a court of law as a basis for conviction.
So when I do something criminally negligent as long as I make it look like it was not intentional or claim it wasnt and you die I should not go to jail?
If there's not enough evidence to actually convict you in court, then absolutely, yes.
YOU NEVER READ ANY OF THESE GOD DAMNED EMAILS and you are defending Hillary while IGNORING THE FACTS.
Leaving aside the fact that you never read any of those emails either, if these so-called facts were so self-evident, then there would be sufficient basis to convict her, wouldn't there? Just how small a town do you think the entire USA actually is that you could even believe it to be realistically possible that any such incriminating evidence could have been overlooked after this amount of attention has been given to it?
But hey.... if you know of some evidence that all of the other would-be prosecuters have missed, then maybe you should consider trying to pass that along.
Ideally, the bully should be made to realize that any damage he might have been thinking he could inflict would simply be ineffective and only result in senseless waste of energy and resources on his part, while not affecting you in the slightest. For example, if you are wearing body armor, he won't kick you in the shins because it will only hurt him more than it hurts you.
That's what the fucking idiots in the whitehouse apparently are: hopeless shits who are too busy trying to figure out who has the biggest dick to even *think* about the long term consequences of this kind of action.
What the fuck are they even thinking they will accomplish by retaliating? It doesn't take two seconds to realize that all that will do is escalate the situation.... while obviously the whitehouse shouldn't just ignore it, the sensible thing to do is harden their defenses against such attacks so that no damage is incurred if another hack happens in the future.
Seriously.... this is how wars start. And considering the powers that are involved, this can't possibly end well.... for anybody.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that the unstated assumption that is made, which may be entirely correct, but still appears to be an assumption,is that Stromeyer's claims about the woman being able to look at two different images 24 hours apart and mentally fuse them into a single one is false. Granted, the lack of reproducibility does lend this assumption some credibility, but why doesn't the article come out and simply say that is what they are assuming instead of dancing around it with a whole bunch of jibber jabber about how memory works?
I think Trump is an ass,, personally... but those comments were made over 10 years ago. Really, the fact that they are being brought up *now* as some kind of excuse to not elect him is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. There are a plethora of things that he is saying right now, or has pledged to do in his first term in office that are problematic enough as a reason to not vote for the guy.... but dredging up a conversation made over a decade ago is just so.... well.... stupid.
Somebody saying that somebody else broke the law, basically for reasons that appear to be nothing beyond the fact that the opportunity for breaking the law was present does not, I'm afraid, constitute court-accepted proof that the latter person actually did do the things they are alleged to have done. At the end of the day, the FBI's investigation into the details of Hillary's unsecured private email server that she used admittedly entirely inappropriately to handle some amount of classified content, they were unable to find anything substantial enough to warrant an actual case against her for any criminal behavior. That doesn't mean she's necessarily innocent of what she's been accused of, but when all is said and done, even if you did go and fucking break every goddamn law there is, if there is no substantive evidence to merit a case against you, in a nation where you are innocent until proven guilty, you go free. Full stop.
As shown by the uniqueness of properties specific to particular numbers in the set of real numbers, which is literally infinite in size, the mere existence of something for which no duplicate has been found does not say anything about the probability of its existence elsewhere in even the vastest possible set of interest other than that its probability is non-zero.
As I said... one in a googleplex is non-zero... and that might, for all we know, be the probability the life would arise anywhere. With odds that low, the fact that we are here at all would just be a fortunate happenstance... but the mere even astronomical odds against it happening in such a case would still not preclude it from happening at all... nor even would they preclude it from happening multiple times. All that can be said in such a case is that it would be unlikely. Nothing more.
Right now, all we have is an upper bound on the likelihood of life arising on a planet... based almost entirely on what we know about a sample-size of one, plus the limited observations that we have made of other worlds in our solar system which have not yet found any evidence of life elsewhere. As we find more planets around other stars that appear like they should be hospitable to life, if we should discover that they have none, then we can slowly whittle away at the upper bound some more. But if we ever *do* find life on other planets, then we'll have a clearer picture of what the the lower bound of the probability actually is (right now all we know is that it is non-zero... but even one in 600 quintillion is still non-zero), and from there we will be in a better position to predict how likely life actually is, and even about how many worlds there will be in the universe with life on them.
So. the answer to if there is life elsewhere is not "yes, many times", It's "I don't know, because we haven't found it yet and don't know enough about the actual probability of life existing to come to any conclusions about the probability of life". At best, all we know right now is approximately the likelihood of planets that should be hospitable to life, but this does not dictate that such planets will necessarily have life. Concluding that it is somehow a certainty or even necessarily particularly likely that life elsewhere exists just because we do is simply begging the question.
Particularly since you don't exactly tell the 600 lb gorilla on the bus where they can't sit.
The size of the numbers is irrelevant if the probabilities are tiny enough. As unimaginably large as the universe might be, we know absolutely nothing about how unimaginably small the chance of life is elsewhere. Life here might have been a one in a googleplex longshot for all we know... and if the odds were indeed that low (and I'm not suggesting that they were) it's actually not at all likely to exist anywhere else (although still not impossible either). My point being that we just don't fucking know shit... and saying *anything* about the actual likelihood of life elsewhere when we still have a sample data size of one is just so much blabbering about what someone might want to think or believe in rather than an intelligent conclusion based on deductive reasoning and observable evidence.
Previous story
Is there a statute of limitations on duplicate stories?
My point is not that we are necessarily alone, but that even in an infinite sample size, uniqueness is possible... the universe is unimaginably vast, but still finite. It seems it must be similarly possible, and not even necessarily improbable, that we might be alone as well. We cannot ascertain the actual odds of life existing because we don't know enough about any exoplanets so far discovered that appear to be hospitable to life to know if life actually exists on them or not.
Barring an eccentric seller with very peculiar sales conditions, nodding doesn't actually pay for anything.
The authorization on payment by cash is already given by the issuer of the currency.
I saw what you did there. :)
and I'm pretty sure that she never did all of the things that the media is saying she did.
Ads and all... at least it's free to listen to.
How's that supposed to work? Do you tap into the kinetic energy produced by nodding and generate some material amount of work that you can translate into capital, or what?
Or did they mean to say that you can *authorize* payments just by nodding?
Because that's not at all what the headline, summary, or even the article says.
Words matter. I don't know why people don't just say what they mean instead of making ambiguous statements that don't mean anything sensible.
Ferengi Rule of Acquisition # 34?
First of all, please don't presume to know what I would or would not accept. I'm entirely willing to look at the facts, if they are presented to me. However, all I've ever seen from anyone are mere allegations that she committed a crime. It's not a crime to run a private mail server. It *IS* a crime to cause nationally secured documents to be misappropriated, but there's no actual proof that this ever actually happened because of what she did (although I will concede that there is no lack of proof that it *may* have happened). It may even make sense to criminalize what she did, so that other people don't attempt it in the future, but that would be irrelevant to this case. In the end, you can't prosecute somebody for something that they might have done just because they had the opportunity to do so. The most you can do at that point, and deservedly so, is to initiate an investigation to discover if there was actually any wrongdoing. So far, that investigation into Clinton's ill advised activities has yielded no real evidence of actual criminal behavior, and might not ever reveal any evidence of it even if she *did* do something illegal. I'm not saying here that it's okay to break the law if you don't get caught... what I'm saying is that it's certainly *NOT* okay to incarcerate somebody for breaking a law when you don't have the proof that is merited by a court of law to convict them.
I was actually thinking about this last night, and I thought that they could may be add a feature to a game like Pokemon Go that might help save a few of those lives... or at least improve their survivability odds a little bit if they aren't actually watching where they are walking.
The devices have a camera.... so couldn't they use the camera to watch the face of the user playing the game? Using eye-tracking software, they could probably ascertain if the user was looking at the screen at any given instant while the game is on. The idea would be that if the user was moving near speeds that would be associated with foot travel while also looking at the screen without taking breaks at least every 20 to 30 seconds or so to look up, a big textual overlay could appear over the game's UI that says "WATCH WHERE YOU ARE GOING", which would flash for a few seconds, before allowing the user to resume play... and the timer would start again.
Anyways, it was just an idea I had. I dunno for sure if it would even actually work.
True... but in that time, travelling on the highway, you are looking at having to recharge your EV more than once. You might do 60 mph on the highway, but having to stop for a half hour every 50 miles or so brings down your net travelling speed to about 33 mph. So in 4 hours you'd cover only a little over 130 miles, compared to the 240 miles you'd have covered in an ICE. Even allowing for a couple of bathroom breaks in that time, you're still looking at 230 miles or more. Because the charging time takes so much longer than refuelling, coupled with the fact that it must be done more than twice as often, you don't end up saving any net time, and certainly can't cover anything close to the same distance in the same period. A long interstate road trip that takes only about 12 to 13 hours in a gasoline car, including pit stops for rest breaks and meals would take more than 20 in an EV, and probably isn't even necessarily viable to finish in one day.
Obviously... but shit happens. This isn't like running out of gas completely here... this is like expecting to be able to just get up in the morning and go to work whether you forgot to fill up last night or not because *if* you forgot, you might not have enough to make it to work, but you only need to allow yourself whatever extra time you need for the fillup and you're good to go. If you live in an urban area, a suitable gas station won't even be out of your way so it might add 5 minutes to your morning commute. If you forgot to charge your car, and don't have enough of a charge to get to work, because you can't use high-speed charging in your own home without special wiring, you're looking at it being *hours* before your car is practical to drive anywhere. Even if you had such wiring conveniently available, it is still 30 minutes of extra time as opposed to just 5 minutes.
And it isn't even a contrived situation... a *lot* of people don't think to fill up their car at night, after evening commuting hours when the gas prices are typically at their lowest, and most gas stations, at least the ones around where I live, typically exploit this fact among morning commuters, where the price of gas will often jump higher in the morning than it was the night before unless there are mitigating factors that are driving the prices down further. Many people do think to fill up at night... I endeavor to, because over a number of weeks the difference adds up to a fair amount, but I still do forget from time to time.
With an ICE, it just means paying a bit more money when I forget to fill up at night. With an EV, forgetting to charge it at night it means possibly being out of half a day's pay for not getting into work in the morning. Suddenly, gasoline starts to look a whole lot cheaper.
But again... maybe someday, hopefully soon... EV's are gonna get there. But the inconveniences they hold at the present time simply do not outweigh all of their advantages.
Please... if the evidence was that clear, there are people who make more money in one day than both of us put together make in a year that would have been all too happy to prosecute her for the crime.
Why would anyone want something that won't end well for themselves?
Negligence isn't itself criminal... negligence that breaks the law is.
The funny thing is, here, that despite all of the allegations and investigation, and even despite how suspicious the whole damn thing looks... there's no real evidence of any actual criminal wrongdoing... because if there were, then she could be, you know, actually charged with a crime.
And I seriously don't think you'd want to live in a country where mere allegations that happened to get repeated often enough got to be used in a court of law as a basis for conviction.
If there's not enough evidence to actually convict you in court, then absolutely, yes.
Leaving aside the fact that you never read any of those emails either, if these so-called facts were so self-evident, then there would be sufficient basis to convict her, wouldn't there? Just how small a town do you think the entire USA actually is that you could even believe it to be realistically possible that any such incriminating evidence could have been overlooked after this amount of attention has been given to it?
But hey.... if you know of some evidence that all of the other would-be prosecuters have missed, then maybe you should consider trying to pass that along.
Ideally, the bully should be made to realize that any damage he might have been thinking he could inflict would simply be ineffective and only result in senseless waste of energy and resources on his part, while not affecting you in the slightest. For example, if you are wearing body armor, he won't kick you in the shins because it will only hurt him more than it hurts you.
And we still have no violence.
Hopeless.
That's what the fucking idiots in the whitehouse apparently are: hopeless shits who are too busy trying to figure out who has the biggest dick to even *think* about the long term consequences of this kind of action.
What the fuck are they even thinking they will accomplish by retaliating? It doesn't take two seconds to realize that all that will do is escalate the situation.... while obviously the whitehouse shouldn't just ignore it, the sensible thing to do is harden their defenses against such attacks so that no damage is incurred if another hack happens in the future.
Seriously.... this is how wars start. And considering the powers that are involved, this can't possibly end well.... for anybody.
Two words: due process.