This is not the current religion, this is the topic of all religions at all times. We are born sinners, and the whole life is misery to pay for our sins. Some call it karma, others religions call it the Original sin, but the idea is the same during all civilisations.
And 500 years ago, Paracelsus famously wrote: Everything is poison, and it's only the dose that makes something not poisonous. This is still valid today.
And all your arrogance will not change it. Life is misery, and everything is poisonous. Deal with it.
It's not working correctly, and we don't know if the data is wrong or the methods evaluating them, or both. We just see the results, and they definitely are wrong. As COMPASS is closed and protected by trade secrets, we can't tell.
With COMPASS, one of the prediction tools used, there was some scrutinity, and in certain ways, you are right. Apparently, COMPASS uses many parameters (more than 130), and none of them is race, but many ask for the social background (stable family, stable source of income, education level etc.pp.). And apparently, it weighs many small and indirect warning signs for recidivism higher than few, but very strong direct indicators. For instance, COMPASS seems to be prone to underestimate the recidivism rate for a sexual offender with a stable family background, but overestimate the recidivism rate for a petty thief with a dire income situation.
In the end, it underestimates the recidivism rate of the average white offender by a factor of two, that means the average white offender is twice as likely to commit another crime than COMPASS expects. But to the contrary, it overestimates the recidivism rate of the average black offender also by a factor of two, and expecting him to commit another crime twice as often as they actually do.
Ironically, car ownership is falling constantly in all major cities, even in those where the average income is high. Apparently, the example given tells them something different than you expect.
All the expected results don't stir so much attention, as they were expected anyway. But as we know, the most exciting phrase in Science is not "Heureka!", it's "Well, that's odd." (often attributed to Isaac Asimov).
Things going according to plan don't make for exciting news. Discoveries that were planned for don't make for exciting news. Only the unexpected gets attention. If you find something you were expecting anyway, then there is nothing to be excited about.
You could even cite Claude Shannon: Information is the inverse of probability. If the Improbable happens, you get much more information than from an event highly probable. Thus yes, important discoveries are often not expected.
If you look more closely, any intert gas is missing, as Dmitry Mendeleev looked at hydrides and oxides to put the elements in the periodic table (Look at the table head!), and inert gases don't have hydrides and oxides. Thus he had to omit them.
As a matter of fact, no one who voted for whomever, is an idiot (idiotes) in the literal meaning of the word. Everyone who votes is a citizen, not an idiotes. Idiotes are those who just accept whatever others vote for by not going to vote themselves.
The Zeppelin NT is not made by the same company, that made Zeppelins of the 1920ies and got the name from its founder Count Zeppelin. The company which made the Zeppelin NT was founded as Metallwerk Friedrichshafen GmbH in 1950, and only later renamed into Zeppelin-Metallwerke GmbH.
As the Zeppelin NT is a semi-rigid airship, it is not even a Zeppelin airship from a technical point of view. Count Zeppelin's constructions were rigid airships, and of those, none has survived. The Zeppelin NT has just a famous name attached to it without living up to its legacy.
Actually, it's not genetic engineering. It's just taking saplings from stubs. When you cut down the tree, the roots are still alive, and new saplings will grow from them, being clones from the tree that was cut down.
The Berkeley Earth Project was founded because some guy called Richard Mueller found in 2010 that some of the critics of Anthropogenic Global Warming might have a point. And thus his wife and him created the project to independently analyze all available climate data and create a statistical model. They published their findings first in 2012.
Any of those solutions is arbitrary and will create arbitrary problems, and then some wise guy will appear and point to another foolproof method to solve exactly this problem and creating a chain of new problems by the way. You can't store the information about an area into a single point. So any application that returns a single point will fail if that point is not known exactly enough.
As I am not on Facebook (never was), any enabled Facebook-App means that the phone is sending my data to a company I don't have a contract with. And I don't see that there is any agreement between the company and me signed or otherwise agreed upon, that they are entitled to my data, and they didn't present me with any list of things they are intending to do with my data.
The moronic credo is, that "doubt" is equivalent to anything. Doubt is just "I don't believe it", and belief does not go well with science.
It's a completely different story if you put up a What-if-hypothesis and gather data and build models and investigate which consequences this What-if would have. And if this What-if harmonizes with what we see, then you have a valid ground for further scientific investigation.
Albert Einstein was famous for not believing into Quantum Mechanic. But he didn't deny quantum mechanics, he put up a series of very interesting what-if-hypotheses like the Bose-Einstein-condensate, quantum entanglement etc.pp. which would be true if quantum mechanics were true, and which were the base of further scientific work. Today, we know they are real, and Quantum Mechanic is still ruling supreme. Albert Einstein was wrong in this case, and still he managed to greatly further the science of Quantum Mechanics. He even got his Nobel Prize in Quantum Mechanics (and not for Special or General Relativity). That's how doubt works in Science. Not by just declaring "I don't believe it" or "There might be future results contradicting this", but by actually thinking through your alternative hypotheses and publishing possible results.
Yes, it's possible that there are unknown effects lurking somewhere, and we should be open if we get evidence of it. But for instance, we are able to calculate the absorption spectrum of Carbon dioxide down to 10 digits, and the results of experiments fit the calculation. There is not much wiggle room for Carbon dioxide not being a Greenhouse gas. The planetary greenhouse effect was wellknown already in the 1970ies, when the first probes landed on Venus and Mars and actually measured the effect of a 95% Carbon dioxide atmosphere on both planets. Why for some reason the effect clearly measured on two other planets would not exist on Earth is somehow not clear.
Actually, the term robot is much older and can be traced back to the czech author Karel apek and his 1920 play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots). The czech term roboti means "workers" or "slaves".
Everything else is just semantics. Do a mechanical robot have to look like a human, or is it enough if the robot autonomously does the job he was designed for?
First: No one said that the biometric identification was the sole source for authorisation. It is a means to establish identity, not more, and not less. And this method was now defeated. The BND mentioned in the article does not use veins as the sole source of identification, it's just one of the layers of security there. There are still badges to be worn, pin codes to be entered and personal documents checked by security personel at the BND sites etc.pp.
Second: The main problem with biometric identification is that you can't change your identification after yours got compromised. When your password becomes known to someone else, you can change it. When someone steals or copies your badge, you get issued a new one, and the old one gets blocked. But you can't change your vein pattern, your retina or your hand shape that easily.
Don't know about you, but here around (Austria), the news were full of speculation that Turkey hesitated to publish said recordings because it would give away the places of the turkish bugs in the Saudi Arabian embassy.
The timing is important. Cash upfront is legally different from paying off a debt.
Legal tender means that you are entitled to pay any debt with the coins and bills issued. But for a debt to exist, there has to be a service provided or a good delivered before payment.
Slashdot Mirror
And 500 years ago, Paracelsus famously wrote: Everything is poison, and it's only the dose that makes something not poisonous. This is still valid today.
And all your arrogance will not change it. Life is misery, and everything is poisonous. Deal with it.
It's not working correctly, and we don't know if the data is wrong or the methods evaluating them, or both. We just see the results, and they definitely are wrong. As COMPASS is closed and protected by trade secrets, we can't tell.
In the end, it underestimates the recidivism rate of the average white offender by a factor of two, that means the average white offender is twice as likely to commit another crime than COMPASS expects. But to the contrary, it overestimates the recidivism rate of the average black offender also by a factor of two, and expecting him to commit another crime twice as often as they actually do.
Ironically, car ownership is falling constantly in all major cities, even in those where the average income is high. Apparently, the example given tells them something different than you expect.
Things going according to plan don't make for exciting news. Discoveries that were planned for don't make for exciting news. Only the unexpected gets attention. If you find something you were expecting anyway, then there is nothing to be excited about.
You could even cite Claude Shannon: Information is the inverse of probability. If the Improbable happens, you get much more information than from an event highly probable. Thus yes, important discoveries are often not expected.
If you look more closely, any intert gas is missing, as Dmitry Mendeleev looked at hydrides and oxides to put the elements in the periodic table (Look at the table head!), and inert gases don't have hydrides and oxides. Thus he had to omit them.
As a matter of fact, no one who voted for whomever, is an idiot (idiotes) in the literal meaning of the word. Everyone who votes is a citizen, not an idiotes. Idiotes are those who just accept whatever others vote for by not going to vote themselves.
As the Zeppelin NT is a semi-rigid airship, it is not even a Zeppelin airship from a technical point of view. Count Zeppelin's constructions were rigid airships, and of those, none has survived. The Zeppelin NT has just a famous name attached to it without living up to its legacy.
As none of the Zeppelins exist anymore, it is not just the longest current aircraft, it is indeed the longest aircraft in existance.
Milarch notes that as the local climate is getting hotter and less foggy, it's no longer as conducive to producing the mega growths of yore.
So their natural habitat is no longer the way it was. The saplings will not grow that easily where their ancestor stood of which they are clones.
Actually, it's not genetic engineering. It's just taking saplings from stubs. When you cut down the tree, the roots are still alive, and new saplings will grow from them, being clones from the tree that was cut down.
So you might actually give him some credit.
Any of those solutions is arbitrary and will create arbitrary problems, and then some wise guy will appear and point to another foolproof method to solve exactly this problem and creating a chain of new problems by the way. You can't store the information about an area into a single point. So any application that returns a single point will fail if that point is not known exactly enough.
As I am not on Facebook (never was), any enabled Facebook-App means that the phone is sending my data to a company I don't have a contract with. And I don't see that there is any agreement between the company and me signed or otherwise agreed upon, that they are entitled to my data, and they didn't present me with any list of things they are intending to do with my data.
It's a completely different story if you put up a What-if-hypothesis and gather data and build models and investigate which consequences this What-if would have. And if this What-if harmonizes with what we see, then you have a valid ground for further scientific investigation.
Albert Einstein was famous for not believing into Quantum Mechanic. But he didn't deny quantum mechanics, he put up a series of very interesting what-if-hypotheses like the Bose-Einstein-condensate, quantum entanglement etc.pp. which would be true if quantum mechanics were true, and which were the base of further scientific work. Today, we know they are real, and Quantum Mechanic is still ruling supreme. Albert Einstein was wrong in this case, and still he managed to greatly further the science of Quantum Mechanics. He even got his Nobel Prize in Quantum Mechanics (and not for Special or General Relativity). That's how doubt works in Science. Not by just declaring "I don't believe it" or "There might be future results contradicting this", but by actually thinking through your alternative hypotheses and publishing possible results.
Yes, it's possible that there are unknown effects lurking somewhere, and we should be open if we get evidence of it. But for instance, we are able to calculate the absorption spectrum of Carbon dioxide down to 10 digits, and the results of experiments fit the calculation. There is not much wiggle room for Carbon dioxide not being a Greenhouse gas. The planetary greenhouse effect was wellknown already in the 1970ies, when the first probes landed on Venus and Mars and actually measured the effect of a 95% Carbon dioxide atmosphere on both planets. Why for some reason the effect clearly measured on two other planets would not exist on Earth is somehow not clear.
Somehow your logic is quite off.
There are people who pay more for a house, that also can't do what an ICE can do.
Sorry. Slashcode ate the C with the hacek on it.
Everything else is just semantics. Do a mechanical robot have to look like a human, or is it enough if the robot autonomously does the job he was designed for?
First: No one said that the biometric identification was the sole source for authorisation. It is a means to establish identity, not more, and not less. And this method was now defeated. The BND mentioned in the article does not use veins as the sole source of identification, it's just one of the layers of security there. There are still badges to be worn, pin codes to be entered and personal documents checked by security personel at the BND sites etc.pp.
Second: The main problem with biometric identification is that you can't change your identification after yours got compromised. When your password becomes known to someone else, you can change it. When someone steals or copies your badge, you get issued a new one, and the old one gets blocked. But you can't change your vein pattern, your retina or your hand shape that easily.
Are you talking about User ID 14 in the Hicom 300/HiPath 4000? ;)
Don't know about you, but here around (Austria), the news were full of speculation that Turkey hesitated to publish said recordings because it would give away the places of the turkish bugs in the Saudi Arabian embassy.
Actually, Ulysses S. Grant begs to differ: I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.
Legal tender means that you are entitled to pay any debt with the coins and bills issued. But for a debt to exist, there has to be a service provided or a good delivered before payment.
You fail.