Not exactly. When someone with good credit pays off his "cash back" card at the end of the month, the bank passes on a portion of the merchant fees. That's the "cash back."
Of course, if you use your card as an unsecured loan for longer than the billing cycle then you pay interest. And if you're late paying you pay late fees. You're a fool to do that in anything but a dire emergency, and your parents, friends and colleagues have warned you about it all your life, but you're free to live your life any way you want to.
What would we like about the dollar coin? Except by sight it's nearly indistinguishable from a quarter worth, well, a quarter of what a dollar is worth. And when we see it... it's ugly. I want to see George Washington on my dollars, not obscure companions of explorers however worthy they may be.
I do think it'd be reasonable to replace the penny and nickle with a better designed $1 coin and a $5 coin. Then the new system of cash transactions in tenths of a dollar instead of hundredths of a dollar would make sense and the universe wouldn't end because of it.
No approach to "programming" for normal people ever has allowed normal people to go beyond the canned capabilities. Excel macros are as far out of reach.
But why would this be surprising or unreasonable? Most people can't change the oil in their car either, or replace the stereo. And most of those who can can't make engine repairs. It'd be absurd to suggest this reflects faulty thinking on the part of car manufacturers.
I was going to say wake me up when he has a production-grade model that's still the most reliable, most advanced, and faster than any 3D printer but the kid gets major style points for the Bustin Jeiber game.
Can I get you to concede that there are scientists unworthy of the title? And that many scientists belive that consensus with no serious contending alternative explanations is effectively settled?
Yes and yes. But I would suggest that those who fall into the latter category generally also fall into the former.
A theory has to coherently explain all of the evidence and make correct predictions about experiments not yet performed. Epicycles had no contenders for quite a while. But anyone who considered the orbits of the planets a settled matter was a fool -- each time data collection improved, epicycles' prediction was a little bit off yet again.
Put another way: I don't have to know the truth to know when someone is full of bull. I merely need recognize the characteristics of BS. It could still be the truth, but the guy BSing me is ruled out as a credible source for that knowledge.
Go right ahead. This should be entertaining. Or was that the limit of your analysis?
Before you get too worked up, allow me to point out that the phrase, "In my opinion" encourages critical thinking but pretty much precludes offering the statement which follows as a scientific result.
How do you make other people do what you think they should do? You don't.
You tell them what you're sure is true with a simplified explanation of why using the language of certainty. Then you tell them what you believe to be true and why, using the language of uncertainty. Then you acknowledge any competing theories that haven't been strictly disproven, again with the language of uncertainty, and briefly discuss the merits behind those points of view.
Anyone who needs to make a decision on that information will then ask their personal subject matter expert to spot check you -- do any of your certain claims appear questionable? Does any of the uncertainty in your beliefs appear to be mere wishful thinking? Did you deliberately omit the competition?
Folks won't make their decision on the facts. They'll make their decision based on whether they believe you're honest. Behaving like a used car salesman, using the language of certainty for everything you believe and ridiculing that which you don't, dissuades folks from finding you credible. The hard sell sometimes achieves a single result but it never achieves sustainable results over time.
I don't suggest doing nothing. I suggest more research and more experimentation. I suggest public policy that encourages more nuclear power and addresses the dangerous build up of temporary storage for spent nuclear fuel, trading a risk of local toxicity for the proven regional air pollution and possible global impact.
What I -don't- suggest is that we rush it. Let change evolve slowly on a low-cost vector until the science is good enough to support more radical action.
The only reason this whole thing is political (or a debate in the first place) is because there are people who stand to lose significantly from environmentally friendly measures and a move away from hydrocarbons.
And you and I are among them. The kind of massive economic shift needed to materially reduce the use of fossil fuels will seriously undermine your standard of living, as will the war with China necessary to stop them from burning coal.
Before we undertake such a massive and costly effort, we'd better be damn sure we're right. Something more than 97% of published abstracts declining to reject human activity as a major cause of global warming. Like maybe a model that can be shown to have been solidly predictive a decade or two after its publication. With numbers far enough outside the error band to lend the model credibility.
Phrenology has no scientific basis, but Eugenics certainly does. If you take all the people with traits you don't like, and murder them, you will have fewer of those traits in the next generation. That is a scientific fact.
That's basic animal husbandry. Eugenics takes it a step further - to a belief that weeding out the undesirables in a population will improve the species. But the last century of animal husbandry and now genetics suggests a different result - that from bulldogs to dairy cows the more thoroughly bred the animal, the more fragile it becomes. That a loss of genetic diversity leads to extinction.
Eugenics was presented as science -- look everybody, we can control attributes through breeding. Surely if we breed out the undesirable characteristics, our species will be better for it. But that conclusion didn't follow from the evidence. Eugenics' proponents made a long and unjustified leap to reach their conclusion from the available science. And in time they were proven wrong.
In my opinion, current "climate change science" quacks like the same duck -- a core of sound science deep underneath a pile of conclusions far more profound than the science actually supports.
"97 percent of climate scientists believe human activities are causing global warming."
That's not a scientific statement, it's a political one. Science doesn't vote, it either provably is or it isn't.
When we push beliefs on people and claim it's science, we shouldn't be surprised when they treat it as flexibly as they do any other belief. Nor should we be surprised when such misuse of science erodes their faith in its overall veracity.
Is climate change human caused? Hell if I know. But I know it's been pushed on the public about as unscientifically as Eugenics and Phrenology.
Louis A. Del Monte is a Internet marketing/sales expert, award winning physicist, author, featured speaker and CEO of Del Monte and Associates, Inc.
During his college & graduate school, Del Monte supplemented his income working as a professional magician at resorts in New York's Catskill Mountain region.
His first pride, foremost in his profile? His ability to sell you. Also important? His skill as an illusionist. Missing from the summary? Any hint of software development work of any kind, personal or professional, let alone AI.
Science mustn't be about authority but it mustn't be about salesmanship either. There's an obvious credibility problem here and no way to test his claim save waiting until he's old, decrepit and has already received the maximum benefit from anybody choosing to listen to him.
Guy's speaking out of his tailpipe and it looks to me like he really is a sales expert.
Do you have any idea what you would be claiming is not patented by them if you sent this little note?
Uh... yes as a matter of fact. The DMCA does not relate to patents (that C is Copyright). This "little note" makes no claims whatsoever about patents.
I frankly have no idea whether anything in cyanogenmod violates any copyrights or patents. If you have reason to believe it does, you probably shouldn't post it anywhere that U.S. law holds sway.
And if it's fully legit, well, yeah they can still sue you. Man up. You only have rights you're willing to stand up for. If you'll cede those rights in the face of a mere nastygram then you never really had them to begin with. But hey, I'm ok with you having fewer rights than me as long as it's your choice.
The average estimate for when this will happen is 2040, though Del Monte says it might be as late as 2045. Either way, it's a timeframe of within three decades.
I hope that's a in-joke. Like construction that's forever two weeks from done and jam two days a week (yesterday and tomorrow), three decades has been the estimate for "true" AI since the 1970's. Every year, it's just three more decades away.
"My name is X, and legal service may be made to Y. Acting on behalf of the information identified at Z I assert under penalty of perjury my belief that the material does not infringe a copyright as claimed. I request and require that the material be restored until such time as any dispute regarding infringement is resolved at law. I respectfully remind you that only timely compliance with this put-back notice absolves you of liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."
That's it. That's all you say. Nothing more. Nothing less. You don't have to justify yourself. In fact, you SHOULDN'T justify yourself -- that just gives the bastards ammo. Your rights convey from the bare assertion. Let the bastards drag any justification out of your lawyer if they dare.
I mostly stopped wearing a watch because my phone does that now. I only need a watch in secure areas where phones (and smart watches) aren't allowed.
Pocket watches went out of style when miniaturized and rugged wristwatches became cost effective. Now pocket watches are "back" in the form of a small computer in a pouch - aka a smart phone. A wristwatch can't have enough of a display area to be useful as "the" mobile computer a person carries around. And there's no real reason someone would want to carry two. So except perhaps as a style thing, the wristwatch isn't coming back.
You'd have better luck with a fallout-style pip boy -- a band covering the forearm with a screen a good 8 inches long.
I suspect the ruling may have been different if Aereo had required customers to buy their own antennas, and only charged an installation fee to host the antenna and monthly hardware insurance fee to replace broken ones.
That's how the raw milk people do it. You buy a share of the cow and get milk from that cow.
Shut the fuck up. Seriously, shut the fuck up. You are wrong in every possible way.
Why don't you tell us what you really think.
Seriously though, this is how patents work. Law isn't math and it pays math no more heed than it pays any other point of view. If you learn nothing else today, understand that from a legal perspective math is just another point of view.
If you ask a mathematician, all the universe is math. Folks who practice law have a different point of view. Unsurprisingly, the legal point of view prevails in court.
Because a "data compression algorithm" is more than a mathematical equation. Indeed, outside the material scope of a computer it has no existence, except perhaps as a thought problem.
The idea of mechanically separating grain is not patentable but a machine which actually does so is. And that patent will cover any machine which works substantially the same way, which is to say follows the same process or algorithm. Do you follow the difference?
What SCOTUS said yesterday was that merely adding a computer to something already practiced in the public domain does not remove it from the public domain. It is not patentable. Not new. That should come as a big "duh" moment for anyone who thought otherwise. But the invention of something that didn't exist in a non-computer form and for which a computer is an essential component, well that is patentable. And the patent will cover any computer or other device running it.
Prima donnas? You misunderstand the nature of 9's. It's not about status, it's about waste. If you waste their time with repetitive work they could eliminate with automation, they resent it. Give them the responsibility AND the authority. Demand that the work be done, but don't set capricious requirements on the how. You'll rarely be disappointed.
As for documentation, 9's document for other 9's and other 9's have little trouble following the work. A 7 can't always follow a 9's thinking well enough to change the code, even when you luck out with a particularly good communicator.
If you follow your approach, you'll have high turnover with any 9's you manage to hire. You don't offer them anyone to learn from and you force them to dumb down every good idea they have. That's why google only hires 9's -- they can't afford not to.
Slashdot Mirror
Not exactly. When someone with good credit pays off his "cash back" card at the end of the month, the bank passes on a portion of the merchant fees. That's the "cash back."
Of course, if you use your card as an unsecured loan for longer than the billing cycle then you pay interest. And if you're late paying you pay late fees. You're a fool to do that in anything but a dire emergency, and your parents, friends and colleagues have warned you about it all your life, but you're free to live your life any way you want to.
What would we like about the dollar coin? Except by sight it's nearly indistinguishable from a quarter worth, well, a quarter of what a dollar is worth. And when we see it... it's ugly. I want to see George Washington on my dollars, not obscure companions of explorers however worthy they may be.
I do think it'd be reasonable to replace the penny and nickle with a better designed $1 coin and a $5 coin. Then the new system of cash transactions in tenths of a dollar instead of hundredths of a dollar would make sense and the universe wouldn't end because of it.
Pre-paid debit card.
No approach to "programming" for normal people ever has allowed normal people to go beyond the canned capabilities. Excel macros are as far out of reach.
But why would this be surprising or unreasonable? Most people can't change the oil in their car either, or replace the stereo. And most of those who can can't make engine repairs. It'd be absurd to suggest this reflects faulty thinking on the part of car manufacturers.
We are talking about something "regular" people can do.
Regular people can build web apps. It's called "Microsoft Sharepoint."
Haters gonna hate.
I was going to say wake me up when he has a production-grade model that's still the most reliable, most advanced, and faster than any 3D printer but the kid gets major style points for the Bustin Jeiber game.
Can I get you to concede that there are scientists unworthy of the title? And that many scientists belive that consensus with no serious contending alternative explanations is effectively settled?
Yes and yes. But I would suggest that those who fall into the latter category generally also fall into the former.
A theory has to coherently explain all of the evidence and make correct predictions about experiments not yet performed. Epicycles had no contenders for quite a while. But anyone who considered the orbits of the planets a settled matter was a fool -- each time data collection improved, epicycles' prediction was a little bit off yet again.
Put another way: I don't have to know the truth to know when someone is full of bull. I merely need recognize the characteristics of BS. It could still be the truth, but the guy BSing me is ruled out as a credible source for that knowledge.
Go right ahead. This should be entertaining. Or was that the limit of your analysis?
Before you get too worked up, allow me to point out that the phrase, "In my opinion" encourages critical thinking but pretty much precludes offering the statement which follows as a scientific result.
How else can you convince a layperson at all?
How do you make other people do what you think they should do? You don't.
You tell them what you're sure is true with a simplified explanation of why using the language of certainty. Then you tell them what you believe to be true and why, using the language of uncertainty. Then you acknowledge any competing theories that haven't been strictly disproven, again with the language of uncertainty, and briefly discuss the merits behind those points of view.
Anyone who needs to make a decision on that information will then ask their personal subject matter expert to spot check you -- do any of your certain claims appear questionable? Does any of the uncertainty in your beliefs appear to be mere wishful thinking? Did you deliberately omit the competition?
Folks won't make their decision on the facts. They'll make their decision based on whether they believe you're honest. Behaving like a used car salesman, using the language of certainty for everything you believe and ridiculing that which you don't, dissuades folks from finding you credible. The hard sell sometimes achieves a single result but it never achieves sustainable results over time.
I don't suggest doing nothing. I suggest more research and more experimentation. I suggest public policy that encourages more nuclear power and addresses the dangerous build up of temporary storage for spent nuclear fuel, trading a risk of local toxicity for the proven regional air pollution and possible global impact.
What I -don't- suggest is that we rush it. Let change evolve slowly on a low-cost vector until the science is good enough to support more radical action.
The only reason this whole thing is political (or a debate in the first place) is because there are people who stand to lose significantly from environmentally friendly measures and a move away from hydrocarbons.
And you and I are among them. The kind of massive economic shift needed to materially reduce the use of fossil fuels will seriously undermine your standard of living, as will the war with China necessary to stop them from burning coal.
Before we undertake such a massive and costly effort, we'd better be damn sure we're right. Something more than 97% of published abstracts declining to reject human activity as a major cause of global warming. Like maybe a model that can be shown to have been solidly predictive a decade or two after its publication. With numbers far enough outside the error band to lend the model credibility.
Phrenology has no scientific basis, but Eugenics certainly does. If you take all the people with traits you don't like, and murder them, you will have fewer of those traits in the next generation. That is a scientific fact.
That's basic animal husbandry. Eugenics takes it a step further - to a belief that weeding out the undesirables in a population will improve the species. But the last century of animal husbandry and now genetics suggests a different result - that from bulldogs to dairy cows the more thoroughly bred the animal, the more fragile it becomes. That a loss of genetic diversity leads to extinction.
Eugenics was presented as science -- look everybody, we can control attributes through breeding. Surely if we breed out the undesirable characteristics, our species will be better for it. But that conclusion didn't follow from the evidence. Eugenics' proponents made a long and unjustified leap to reach their conclusion from the available science. And in time they were proven wrong.
In my opinion, current "climate change science" quacks like the same duck -- a core of sound science deep underneath a pile of conclusions far more profound than the science actually supports.
"97 percent of climate scientists believe human activities are causing global warming."
That's not a scientific statement, it's a political one. Science doesn't vote, it either provably is or it isn't.
When we push beliefs on people and claim it's science, we shouldn't be surprised when they treat it as flexibly as they do any other belief. Nor should we be surprised when such misuse of science erodes their faith in its overall veracity.
Is climate change human caused? Hell if I know. But I know it's been pushed on the public about as unscientifically as Eugenics and Phrenology.
I don't like this kind of reasoning. Science should never be about authority.
Good point. Here's what his linked-in page ( http://www.linkedin.com/in/lou... ) says about him:
Louis A. Del Monte is a Internet marketing/sales expert, award winning physicist, author, featured speaker and CEO of Del Monte and Associates, Inc.
During his college & graduate school, Del Monte supplemented his income working as a professional magician at resorts in New York's Catskill Mountain region.
His first pride, foremost in his profile? His ability to sell you. Also important? His skill as an illusionist. Missing from the summary? Any hint of software development work of any kind, personal or professional, let alone AI.
Science mustn't be about authority but it mustn't be about salesmanship either. There's an obvious credibility problem here and no way to test his claim save waiting until he's old, decrepit and has already received the maximum benefit from anybody choosing to listen to him.
Guy's speaking out of his tailpipe and it looks to me like he really is a sales expert.
Do you have any idea what you would be claiming is not patented by them if you sent this little note?
Uh... yes as a matter of fact. The DMCA does not relate to patents (that C is Copyright). This "little note" makes no claims whatsoever about patents.
I frankly have no idea whether anything in cyanogenmod violates any copyrights or patents. If you have reason to believe it does, you probably shouldn't post it anywhere that U.S. law holds sway.
And if it's fully legit, well, yeah they can still sue you. Man up. You only have rights you're willing to stand up for. If you'll cede those rights in the face of a mere nastygram then you never really had them to begin with. But hey, I'm ok with you having fewer rights than me as long as it's your choice.
Louis Del Monte estimates that...
Who?
The average estimate for when this will happen is 2040, though Del Monte says it might be as late as 2045. Either way, it's a timeframe of within three decades.
I hope that's a in-joke. Like construction that's forever two weeks from done and jam two days a week (yesterday and tomorrow), three decades has been the estimate for "true" AI since the 1970's. Every year, it's just three more decades away.
What fine tuning?
"My name is X, and legal service may be made to Y. Acting on behalf of the information identified at Z I assert under penalty of perjury my belief that the material does not infringe a copyright as claimed. I request and require that the material be restored until such time as any dispute regarding infringement is resolved at law. I respectfully remind you that only timely compliance with this put-back notice absolves you of liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."
That's it. That's all you say. Nothing more. Nothing less. You don't have to justify yourself. In fact, you SHOULDN'T justify yourself -- that just gives the bastards ammo. Your rights convey from the bare assertion. Let the bastards drag any justification out of your lawyer if they dare.
I mostly stopped wearing a watch because my phone does that now. I only need a watch in secure areas where phones (and smart watches) aren't allowed.
Pocket watches went out of style when miniaturized and rugged wristwatches became cost effective. Now pocket watches are "back" in the form of a small computer in a pouch - aka a smart phone. A wristwatch can't have enough of a display area to be useful as "the" mobile computer a person carries around. And there's no real reason someone would want to carry two. So except perhaps as a style thing, the wristwatch isn't coming back.
You'd have better luck with a fallout-style pip boy -- a band covering the forearm with a screen a good 8 inches long.
I suspect the ruling may have been different if Aereo had required customers to buy their own antennas, and only charged an installation fee to host the antenna and monthly hardware insurance fee to replace broken ones.
That's how the raw milk people do it. You buy a share of the cow and get milk from that cow.
Shut the fuck up. Seriously, shut the fuck up. You are wrong in every possible way.
Why don't you tell us what you really think.
Seriously though, this is how patents work. Law isn't math and it pays math no more heed than it pays any other point of view. If you learn nothing else today, understand that from a legal perspective math is just another point of view.
If you ask a mathematician, all the universe is math. Folks who practice law have a different point of view. Unsurprisingly, the legal point of view prevails in court.
Because a "data compression algorithm" is more than a mathematical equation. Indeed, outside the material scope of a computer it has no existence, except perhaps as a thought problem.
The idea of mechanically separating grain is not patentable but a machine which actually does so is. And that patent will cover any machine which works substantially the same way, which is to say follows the same process or algorithm. Do you follow the difference?
What SCOTUS said yesterday was that merely adding a computer to something already practiced in the public domain does not remove it from the public domain. It is not patentable. Not new. That should come as a big "duh" moment for anyone who thought otherwise. But the invention of something that didn't exist in a non-computer form and for which a computer is an essential component, well that is patentable. And the patent will cover any computer or other device running it.
Prima donnas? You misunderstand the nature of 9's. It's not about status, it's about waste. If you waste their time with repetitive work they could eliminate with automation, they resent it. Give them the responsibility AND the authority. Demand that the work be done, but don't set capricious requirements on the how. You'll rarely be disappointed.
As for documentation, 9's document for other 9's and other 9's have little trouble following the work. A 7 can't always follow a 9's thinking well enough to change the code, even when you luck out with a particularly good communicator.
If you follow your approach, you'll have high turnover with any 9's you manage to hire. You don't offer them anyone to learn from and you force them to dumb down every good idea they have. That's why google only hires 9's -- they can't afford not to.