You would still have to program the language recognition, making the computer faster doesn't make it understand you.
Also programing languages are formal, and have very strict definitions, natural language is not, people miss interpret language all the time not just they get it wrong but because it is ambiguous. That is why you use maths in proofs, not English. Maths is a form of communication that supplements English.
Yes you will get people just talking to computers, but that will be more like user interface, not a programing language. Just like in minecraft if you place a block, that is not considered programming, even you are telling the computer what to do.
OK a bit more detail, there are advantage to not having state, or at least making the system deal with it it lead to some really elegant code.
Just like most languages it has it limits, mainly input and output.
I have used haskell and I think it has some really good concepts but is plagued by people using being to terse and cryptic, 1 character names for types are not good yes you can work out what it is doing but you shouldn't have to, and the use of random definable operator like '' makes it unreadable without a reference manual for beginners. A part of good code is being clear, being cleaver isn't usually as important as being understandable. At least the uses I have seen generally been quite cryptic.
If the haskel community want haskel to popular they should make an better effort to make it more understandable.
From the article they detect you are about to come to an epiphany when your eyes focus more on the 0 (this solution) and become dilated. that is fine when there is a simple thing to focus on.
This may well be true in limited circumstances, like when learning something physical like playing a game that moving some number but some problems are more abstract, but there are plenty of times I have come up with solutions to problems by doing something else entirely different, even in my sleep (I often think I should be paid for sleeping).
I am also not sure that this learning with this game is simply not a subconscious reward system anyway especially since the solution is so simple (always pick zero).
Sorry it is bloat, I don't care how crappy your laptop is if it can't run a spreadsheet or two well. Excel 2.0 was released in 1987 that is 30 years ago, the speed even your cheapest computer is well over 1000 times faster (I am being very conservative here, and excluding multi core) they had what memory measured in kilobytes not Gigabytes, and yet people still have problems running a few spreadsheets.
I don't even see why we should be designing better golf balls shouldn't all players be playing with the same golf balls, so we can compare player skill not pocket size.
Seriously if I where to design a perfect golf ball that would fly as far as I needed and with perfect accuracy (guaranteed hole in 1) wouldn't that be just cheating.
Drug patents should be shortened too, nobody should be able to hold life and death over someone in a negotiation process. If a golf ball cost $100,000 I don't buy it, if a POSSIBLY (nobody provides guarantees) life saving drug cost that you do, even if it costs $1 to produce. I am not saying they should not be compensated, just that if we are going to grant companies a monopoly on life and death products their pricing should be independently monitored.
The law may say it, but the conversation is about what the law should be not what it is. Research is not done in a vacuum, they use societies resources and previous discoveries to make new discoveries. I assume most researchers went to school, and read books. It is only fair that they give back in a timely manner. Making that knowledge available will allow for more innovation based on that research. It seems to me the patent system is hindering not encouraging innovation.
And no, not all research is the same, 1 guy spending a couple of days designing dimple layout on a golf ball, is not the same thing as team of researchers spending decades, with no guarantee of success coming up with a treatment for a disease.
For every one American killed by an act of terror in the United States or abroad in 2014, more than 1,049 died because of guns.
from that article 32 US citizens died from terrorism while 33,599 died from firearms. In other articles from 1976 to 2007 between 3,000 to 49,000 died from flu relate reasons.
They have won because people are living in fear and doing insane things to counter insignificant risks.
Everything you do in life involves risk and you might die, sad but true. You are much more likely to die of a cold or heart attack, or a car accident than a terrorist attack but doesn't stop you going out, driving or eating junk food. Heaven forbid paying for public health care, or even the basic of gun control measures in the US in order to save lives.
The point of terrorism is that once you concede to being terrorized, thats it, youve lost whatever war you thought you were fighting against it.
You are not being terrorized if your response is measured, practical and proportionate. When fear takes over rational thought then you are.
I am no explosives expert either but it seems to me that if you really wanted to bring some explosives on the plane and you where going to go to the effort putting C4 in a laptop so it still looks like a laptop in an X-ray. Putting in the lining of a jacket (or maybe your undepants) and sticking blasting cap in you pocket seems like a much more sensible option than hiding it in a laptop which goes through a scanner and last time went to the US (I along time a go I admit) the did a chemical swab on (I assume to test for explosives)
Oh no now I have said this planes will be all nude to the US, you will have to buy clothes on the other side, never mind only a small price to pay for security. The 1 in a billion chance someone will do this is definitely worth it.
It really depends what you read, you are right the first thing you get when google the difference between sociopath and psychopath is the are synonyms, however if you click on the link it actually goes on to describe differences like psychopath is genetic and sociopath is nurture. Psychopath is dangerous, sociopath is crazy.
Psychologists tend to break down the two groups by certain factors, and they have a lot in common. Both tend to be charming, despite being unable to empathize normally with others. They offer convincing systems of fear and disgust, but tend to lack both. Here’s the crux, though: Psychopaths cross the line. Sociopaths may hole up in their houses and remove themselves from society, while a psychopath is busy in his basement rigging shackles to his furnace.
If you go a little further (the 3rd link down) you can find from psychology today https://www.psychologytoday.co... which I assume is a reasonably authoritative source, you get a description more like the Joker/Dexter argument, minus the pop culture references. By this definition you would expect CEOs to be psychopaths, not sociopaths.
I am no physiologist so I have no idea which source is more authoritative but my guess is there is probably disagreement in the community.
Now, if you falsely, and knowingly create a panic (crying fire in a crowded theater) then being prosecuted for directly ensuing panic *may* make sense. But what do you do to people who 1. say that the economy is in bad condition. 2. declare that the existing president is not being helpful. 3. when a new president is elected (and before he comes to office) declare the economy is making a comeback and call it the "new_president recovery"
1. If you made up statics or evidence to support that, and it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt then yes. 2. Not quite sure what this means but if they state that they where not being helpful because the didn't do X and the president did then once again yes. 3. once again yes it should not be allowed if you a misrepresenting the truth why should this be allowed do this
In all instances you would have to prove that you where being deceptive beyond reasonable doubt.
I agree you that should be able to be a skeptic, and that should be protected, there should be nothing wrong with stating you opinion as long as you state it as such. I believe the sky is green, is fine (unless I can prove that you actually don't believe that). I believe the sky is green because of... is also ok unless you can prove in a court of law that... is false.
There are already may cases that stating falsehoods is illegal, yes I will pay back the money, fraud is basically misrepresenting the truth. Why shouldn't I be able to falsify documents its just free speech.
Why shouldn't deception when it comes to politics be any different, its effects are much greater than one person stealing money of another. I know we are just so accustomed to being lied to by politicians that it seems normal, but it shouldn't be.
Society runs on trust, without it we have to check and double check every statement for ourselves. This is totally impractical. Imagine if food said "does not contain nuts", and did Its ok you should be able to say anything you like right, free speech right.
Like almost everything in life there is a balance to be struck, to me if you can prove that someone is misleading people beyond reasonable doubt it should be illegal.
Hate speech on the other hand is far to vague and open to manipulation.
Thinking about it, perhaps hate speech shouldn't be banded but provability false, or deceptive, unfounded in provable facts speech should, especially if it is done publicly.
I hate (insert race here), OK. I hate (insert race here) because they are taking all the jobs, Prove it. This just extends libel and slander laws.
It covers lots of things from false advertising, to yelling fire in a crowded theater (when there is no fire), to saying a race is evil.
So you are angry whats the next step? write an angry post? go on a protest? what is that going to achieve at best they will say they are going to stop doing it and go on doing the same thing in secret. Maybe a few people will lose there jobs, but they will be replaced by others that are just as unethical.
Until people stop having irrational fears of terrorist, communist, immigrants, homosexuals, witches,... (pick your favorite group that is going to "destroy" civilization) we will allow agencies the CIA to have too much power, and once anyone has too much power they will abuse it.
What are you talking about raising kids IS a huge financial penalty, you have to cloth feed, provide accommodation...
You choose to raise children you should have to bare some of burden yourself. We do not have as shortage of people.
If you are raising children in a couple then it all evens out since your income are combined. If you are single then isn't that what child support is for? Or at least should be.
I do not see how somebodies children should be the responsibility the employer. We all make choices in our lives some will effect how much we earn, what is wrong with allowing people to make those choices and live with the consequences.
I think too many these studies take a dollar amount and say look life is unfair, but really money is only a tool to maximize happiness. If someone decides to take a lower paying job that maximizes there happiness what is wrong with that? Why as a society do we need to "correct" the problem.
A much more accurate measure would who is more happy. Given the men commit suicide 3 times more than women in the US, I would say that they are not living it up on their charmed life as a man.
I actually think the opposite would be better being able to order small quantities of perishable items such as fruit and vegetables would save a lot of waste. Cans, bottles etc, I can buy in bulk once a week without worrying about waste.
Of course it does, even if consider child porn the worst crime imaginable (I would consider going around killing children worse), disclosing this would mean the vulnerability would be fixed and they would no longer be able to use it to find more offenders. You could still identify them this way and then gather other evidence.8
We are not talking about institutional bias here. We are talking about women being harassed in the workplace. Do you think they should have to put up with being propositioned for sex when they're just trying to work? Probably not. So I do think some sort of institutional response is warranted.
Actually what is wrong with just saying no, and if it continues then yes it becomes sexual harassment, As far as I am aware work place relationships are quite common. According to this https://mic.com/articles/11206... 17.9% of marriages start at work so at some point someone must proposition the other.
Do you challenge the notion that white men, generally speaking, are still dominant in society? I think that is fairly common knowledge. Did I make an assumption based on that fact? Absolutely.
Yes I do what evidence do you have, there are lots of assumption people make that have no evidence in fact. e.g. you should drink 8 glasses of water a day.
If we are talking about interpersonal relationships, from what I have seen is that it really depends on the relationship between two people sometimes its the woman sometimes its the man. Just because one works does not mean they are the dominant individual.
You are right the article says she has the evidence and it is up to her to prove to a court (not anybody here) that it is valid, the burden of proof is on her. Innocent until proven guilty.
All we can do here is have discussions, based on the article, and personal experience.
The only thing that does not quite make sense is that she said they changed reviews and that held her back from promotions, and it happened within a year. Just how many promotions did she expect within a year.
I have a $20 a year plan, not in the US, I can't use it much but don't want too either, it just lets me be contactable, and make the occasional phone call. 1 minute a month is enough for anybody right? ok it enough for me but I am strange.
What about companies that make money in your country but have no owners there? They benefit from the infrastructure there, schools, health care etc. but do not pay anything towards it.
Also it does not take into account that income is not actually a function of effort or even skill especially for the rich. A person that is simply collecting "rent", is producing nothing if they died tomorrow their assets will still exist.
Requiring tax liabilities to repaid after death would simply mean that poor people could not successes, and would simply be stuck paying for there parents taxes. While rich people would be making money off the poor people that do the actual work.
I see nothing wrong with people who can afford more paying more. If you own a business and are not paying your employees enough to live off the business is effectively the one receiving the state aid since the fact that your employees are educated and healthy makes you money.
Oh yes where or when do you live that has debtors prison? It seems like a silly Idea especially for not being able to pay tax, since that would end up costing the tax payer more keeping you in jail.
He is right most people will use every legal means reduce taxes, that they can be bothered with. In fact if you are a corporation you owe a duty to your share holders to do so. The problem is the tax systems are bought for by companies, this should not be allowed. When I need to pay tax the government does not go into negotiations with me as to how much I should pay. They don't change laws to suit my tax needs. Companies should only be allowed to communicate with governments through public forums just like everyone else.
A political system needs to have zero private funding, I would much rather have that, than have laws bought and sold to the highest bidder. It will cost me more in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
You would still have to program the language recognition, making the computer faster doesn't make it understand you.
Also programing languages are formal, and have very strict definitions, natural language is not, people miss interpret language all the time not just they get it wrong but because it is ambiguous. That is why you use maths in proofs, not English. Maths is a form of communication that supplements English.
Yes you will get people just talking to computers, but that will be more like user interface, not a programing language. Just like in minecraft if you place a block, that is not considered programming, even you are telling the computer what to do.
What is the difference between removing the link or putting it 1 millionth in the search results? Who looks further than the first few pages?
yes,
OK a bit more detail, there are advantage to not having state, or at least making the system deal with it it lead to some really elegant code.
Just like most languages it has it limits, mainly input and output.
I have used haskell and I think it has some really good concepts but is plagued by people using being to terse and cryptic, 1 character names for types are not good yes you can work out what it is doing but you shouldn't have to, and the use of random definable operator like '' makes it unreadable without a reference manual for beginners. A part of good code is being clear, being cleaver isn't usually as important as being understandable. At least the uses I have seen generally been quite cryptic.
If the haskel community want haskel to popular they should make an better effort to make it more understandable.
From the article they detect you are about to come to an epiphany when your eyes focus more on the 0 (this solution) and become dilated. that is fine when there is a simple thing to focus on.
This may well be true in limited circumstances, like when learning something physical like playing a game that moving some number but some problems are more abstract, but there are plenty of times I have come up with solutions to problems by doing something else entirely different, even in my sleep (I often think I should be paid for sleeping).
I am also not sure that this learning with this game is simply not a subconscious reward system anyway especially since the solution is so simple (always pick zero).
Sorry it is bloat, I don't care how crappy your laptop is if it can't run a spreadsheet or two well. Excel 2.0 was released in 1987 that is 30 years ago, the speed even your cheapest computer is well over 1000 times faster (I am being very conservative here, and excluding multi core) they had what memory measured in kilobytes not Gigabytes, and yet people still have problems running a few spreadsheets.
I don't even see why we should be designing better golf balls shouldn't all players be playing with the same golf balls, so we can compare player skill not pocket size.
Seriously if I where to design a perfect golf ball that would fly as far as I needed and with perfect accuracy (guaranteed hole in 1) wouldn't that be just cheating.
Drug patents should be shortened too, nobody should be able to hold life and death over someone in a negotiation process. If a golf ball cost $100,000 I don't buy it, if a POSSIBLY (nobody provides guarantees) life saving drug cost that you do, even if it costs $1 to produce. I am not saying they should not be compensated, just that if we are going to grant companies a monopoly on life and death products their pricing should be independently monitored.
The law may say it, but the conversation is about what the law should be not what it is. Research is not done in a vacuum, they use societies resources and previous discoveries to make new discoveries. I assume most researchers went to school, and read books. It is only fair that they give back in a timely manner. Making that knowledge available will allow for more innovation based on that research. It seems to me the patent system is hindering not encouraging innovation.
And no, not all research is the same, 1 guy spending a couple of days designing dimple layout on a golf ball, is not the same thing as team of researchers spending decades, with no guarantee of success coming up with a treatment for a disease.
It is not that point you can't take practical measures, but when you go down the path of ridiculous measures for minor risks you they have won.
from http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10...
For every one American killed by an act of terror in the United States or abroad in 2014, more than 1,049 died because of guns.
from that article 32 US citizens died from terrorism while 33,599 died from firearms. In other articles from 1976 to 2007 between 3,000 to 49,000 died from flu relate reasons.
They have won because people are living in fear and doing insane things to counter insignificant risks.
Everything you do in life involves risk and you might die, sad but true. You are much more likely to die of a cold or heart attack, or a car accident than a terrorist attack but doesn't stop you going out, driving or eating junk food. Heaven forbid paying for public health care, or even the basic of gun control measures in the US in order to save lives.
The point of terrorism is that once you concede to being terrorized, thats it, youve lost whatever war you thought you were fighting against it.
You are not being terrorized if your response is measured, practical and proportionate. When fear takes over rational thought then you are.
funny I just went on a plane (not in the US) and I was not allowed to put anything with a lithium ion in the cargo hold, it had to go in the cabin.
I am no explosives expert either but it seems to me that if you really wanted to bring some explosives on the plane and you where going to go to the effort putting C4 in a laptop so it still looks like a laptop in an X-ray. Putting in the lining of a jacket (or maybe your undepants) and sticking blasting cap in you pocket seems like a much more sensible option than hiding it in a laptop which goes through a scanner and last time went to the US (I along time a go I admit) the did a chemical swab on (I assume to test for explosives)
Oh no now I have said this planes will be all nude to the US, you will have to buy clothes on the other side, never mind only a small price to pay for security. The 1 in a billion chance someone will do this is definitely worth it.
It really depends what you read, you are right the first thing you get when google the difference between sociopath and psychopath is the are synonyms, however if you click on the link it actually goes on to describe differences like psychopath is genetic and sociopath is nurture. Psychopath is dangerous, sociopath is crazy.
from http://www.medicaldaily.com/wh... the top link
Psychologists tend to break down the two groups by certain factors, and they have a lot in common. Both tend to be charming, despite being unable to empathize normally with others. They offer convincing systems of fear and disgust, but tend to lack both. Here’s the crux, though: Psychopaths cross the line. Sociopaths may hole up in their houses and remove themselves from society, while a psychopath is busy in his basement rigging shackles to his furnace.
If you go a little further (the 3rd link down) you can find from psychology today https://www.psychologytoday.co... which I assume is a reasonably authoritative source, you get a description more like the Joker/Dexter argument, minus the pop culture references. By this definition you would expect CEOs to be psychopaths, not sociopaths.
I am no physiologist so I have no idea which source is more authoritative but my guess is there is probably disagreement in the community.
Just respond to the following
Now, if you falsely, and knowingly create a panic (crying fire in a crowded theater) then being prosecuted for directly ensuing panic *may* make sense. But what do you do to people who
1. say that the economy is in bad condition.
2. declare that the existing president is not being helpful.
3. when a new president is elected (and before he comes to office) declare the economy is making a comeback and call it the "new_president recovery"
1. If you made up statics or evidence to support that, and it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt then yes.
2. Not quite sure what this means but if they state that they where not being helpful because the didn't do X and the president did then once again yes.
3. once again yes it should not be allowed if you a misrepresenting the truth why should this be allowed do this
In all instances you would have to prove that you where being deceptive beyond reasonable doubt.
I agree you that should be able to be a skeptic, and that should be protected, there should be nothing wrong with stating you opinion as long as you state it as such. I believe the sky is green, is fine (unless I can prove that you actually don't believe that). I believe the sky is green because of ... is also ok unless you can prove in a court of law that ... is false.
There are already may cases that stating falsehoods is illegal, yes I will pay back the money, fraud is basically misrepresenting the truth. Why shouldn't I be able to falsify documents its just free speech.
Why shouldn't deception when it comes to politics be any different, its effects are much greater than one person stealing money of another. I know we are just so accustomed to being lied to by politicians that it seems normal, but it shouldn't be.
Society runs on trust, without it we have to check and double check every statement for ourselves. This is totally impractical. Imagine if food said "does not contain nuts", and did Its ok you should be able to say anything you like right, free speech right.
Like almost everything in life there is a balance to be struck, to me if you can prove that someone is misleading people beyond reasonable doubt it should be illegal.
Hate speech on the other hand is far to vague and open to manipulation.
Thinking about it, perhaps hate speech shouldn't be banded but provability false, or deceptive, unfounded in provable facts speech should, especially if it is done publicly.
I hate (insert race here), OK.
I hate (insert race here) because they are taking all the jobs, Prove it.
This just extends libel and slander laws.
It covers lots of things from false advertising, to yelling fire in a crowded theater (when there is no fire), to saying a race is evil.
So you are angry whats the next step? write an angry post? go on a protest? what is that going to achieve at best they will say they are going to stop doing it and go on doing the same thing in secret. Maybe a few people will lose there jobs, but they will be replaced by others that are just as unethical.
Until people stop having irrational fears of terrorist, communist, immigrants, homosexuals, witches, ... (pick your favorite group that is going to "destroy" civilization) we will allow agencies the CIA to have too much power, and once anyone has too much power they will abuse it.
What are you talking about raising kids IS a huge financial penalty, you have to cloth feed, provide accommodation ...
You choose to raise children you should have to bare some of burden yourself. We do not have as shortage of people.
If you are raising children in a couple then it all evens out since your income are combined. If you are single then isn't that what child support is for? Or at least should be.
I do not see how somebodies children should be the responsibility the employer. We all make choices in our lives some will effect how much we earn, what is wrong with allowing people to make those choices and live with the consequences.
I think too many these studies take a dollar amount and say look life is unfair, but really money is only a tool to maximize happiness. If someone decides to take a lower paying job that maximizes there happiness what is wrong with that? Why as a society do we need to "correct" the problem.
A much more accurate measure would who is more happy. Given the men commit suicide 3 times more than women in the US, I would say that they are not living it up on their charmed life as a man.
How about cameras at the store? with tactile feedback gloves if you really want to squeeze those melons.
I actually think the opposite would be better being able to order small quantities of perishable items such as fruit and vegetables would save a lot of waste. Cans, bottles etc, I can buy in bulk once a week without worrying about waste.
Of course it does, even if consider child porn the worst crime imaginable (I would consider going around killing children worse), disclosing this would mean the vulnerability would be fixed and they would no longer be able to use it to find more offenders. You could still identify them this way and then gather other evidence.8
We are not talking about institutional bias here. We are talking about women being harassed in the workplace. Do you think they should have to put up with being propositioned for sex when they're just trying to work? Probably not. So I do think some sort of institutional response is warranted.
Actually what is wrong with just saying no, and if it continues then yes it becomes sexual harassment, As far as I am aware work place relationships are quite common. According to this https://mic.com/articles/11206... 17.9% of marriages start at work so at some point someone must proposition the other.
Do you challenge the notion that white men, generally speaking, are still dominant in society? I think that is fairly common knowledge. Did I make an assumption based on that fact? Absolutely.
Yes I do what evidence do you have, there are lots of assumption people make that have no evidence in fact. e.g. you should drink 8 glasses of water a day.
If we are talking about interpersonal relationships, from what I have seen is that it really depends on the relationship between two people sometimes its the woman sometimes its the man. Just because one works does not mean they are the dominant individual.
You are right the article says she has the evidence and it is up to her to prove to a court (not anybody here) that it is valid, the burden of proof is on her. Innocent until proven guilty.
All we can do here is have discussions, based on the article, and personal experience.
The only thing that does not quite make sense is that she said they changed reviews and that held her back from promotions, and it happened within a year. Just how many promotions did she expect within a year.
I have a $20 a year plan, not in the US, I can't use it much but don't want too either, it just lets me be contactable, and make the occasional phone call. 1 minute a month is enough for anybody right? ok it enough for me but I am strange.
Posts Anonymous Coward, how is that admitting anything?
What about companies that make money in your country but have no owners there? They benefit from the infrastructure there, schools, health care etc. but do not pay anything towards it.
Also it does not take into account that income is not actually a function of effort or even skill especially for the rich. A person that is simply collecting "rent", is producing nothing if they died tomorrow their assets will still exist.
Requiring tax liabilities to repaid after death would simply mean that poor people could not successes, and would simply be stuck paying for there parents taxes. While rich people would be making money off the poor people that do the actual work.
I see nothing wrong with people who can afford more paying more. If you own a business and are not paying your employees enough to live off the business is effectively the one receiving the state aid since the fact that your employees are educated and healthy makes you money.
Oh yes where or when do you live that has debtors prison? It seems like a silly Idea especially for not being able to pay tax, since that would end up costing the tax payer more keeping you in jail.
He is right most people will use every legal means reduce taxes, that they can be bothered with. In fact if you are a corporation you owe a duty to your share holders to do so. The problem is the tax systems are bought for by companies, this should not be allowed. When I need to pay tax the government does not go into negotiations with me as to how much I should pay. They don't change laws to suit my tax needs. Companies should only be allowed to communicate with governments through public forums just like everyone else.
A political system needs to have zero private funding, I would much rather have that, than have laws bought and sold to the highest bidder. It will cost me more in the long run.