"Any jobs you know of require an ability to think independently and analyze available evidence?"
I work in helldesk.
"How about an accurate view of themselves and how they relate to the world and living things?"
Any human who could truly comprehend their place in the universe on an emotional level as well as intellectual would probably jump off the nearest tall building. False stories can still provide comfort.
Interesting argument, but not really true. Very few jobs require an understanding of evolution to earn a living. Biologist, of course. Perhaps some areas of computer science just about touch it. Anything else? Not really.
They don't really have any scientists. They have 'scientists.' With the quote marks. Generally the prominant creationists either have no qualifications, have dubious qualifications from a very unreputable institution, or hold a respectable qualification but in an unrelated field. They do seem to score a lot of engineers - people who are trained to see everything in terms of design - but that's about it.
The Discovery Institute produced a list once of creation scientists. But even their search couldn't actually find any significent number, so they had to resort to padding the list with engineers and outright lying about the views of some of them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Only when there are other theories worthy of discussion. As far as scientific credibility goes, creationism is ridiculous. I'm all for silencing any discussion of creationism in schools - alongside astrology, palm-reading and other fields of nonsense.
Is that per-block? If it's the same as the older games, I expect the smallest useful room size is 3x3, so you need to mine at least ten blocks to make a room (including the access corridoor. The slowest single-block mining is 24h. So it's quite possible for a single room to take upwards of a week.
There's something of an elephant in the room with ReactOS: If it ever got good enough to become a viable alternative to Windows, it's likely that Microsoft would unleash an army of lawyers upon it. But so long as it remains nothing more than a niche tool to run legacy apps that newer versions of Windows can't, they have to reason to do so.
It's also not unknown for copyright holders to send takedowns against their own legitimate distributors, or for things they don't own. The process is automated - bots use a combination of pattern-matching and whitelisting, but are prone to mistakes.
Short term, yes. But if EA gets away with this, other developers are sure to follow, and the loss of an effective ratings would seriously hurt the play store's reputation - pontentially easily doing enough financial damage in lost business to offset whatever they make from this one game.
Every site on the internet somehow spawned a series of like-tweet-plus1 buttons, and it's becoming impossible to use even the most basic services without an account now. Many blogs and news sites don't allow comments without some sort of social account. It go so annoying I ended up renting a VM just so I could have somewhere uncontaminated to run my own email, website and personal filelocker.
From the review I've seen, the game is effectively unplayable without paying. Without the for-pay speedups, even the simplist construction could take weeks of real-time.
In the obvious cases, yes. But you can't always tell at a glance with things like free-to-download music collections. Then there are things like my own site, which has a large collection of music that does infringe copyright - in the US. I'm in the UK, as is the server, and it's entirely legal over here. I'm very careful about that. Plus there are potential issues with user-generated or submitted content.
Investigations cost money. If the registrar is making $30 a year on a domain, it isn't going to be worth a formal investigation. They might be concerned about getting a reputation as an 'easy takedown.'
You want to see an example, you only need to look at the DMCA and youtube. DMCA complains are a standard tool of visious youtube fights - people DMCA videos that insult them, pseudoscience organisations use DMCA takedowns to take down videos condemning them*, political factions DMCA videos promoting opposing views. Even worse, it's largely automated. Bots take down anything that matches their filters - witness the rather amusing incident of the Hugo awards, which showed a clip (with permission), and found their ustream blocked mid-broadcast because the copyright holder had neglected to whitelist the show's stream channel on their enforcer bot, or the takedown of NASA's coverage of the Curiosity landing because a news channel automatically submitted everything they broadcast to the enforcer-bot.
Investigations cost human time. It's also a risk - humans make errors. Unless you're a major customer, you're not worth that much as an individual. This will be especially true when someone realises that you can take the result from googling 'justin beiber intitle:"index of" ' and feed it straight into the mailer. There's no penalty for submitting false positives.
*The producers of the HIV-denying nonsense 'house of numbers' have been doing a lot of this. Criticise the many, many errors and outright lies in their 'documentary' and you may well find a takedown headed your way.
So, - Some troublemaker files a false complaint to my registrar who, afraid of liability, immediately kills my domain and takes down not just web but email too. - Some troublemaker files a false complain to whoever sold microsoft.com and their complaint is forwarded to the trashcan.
It's the DMCA again: Another trick internet bullies can use to silence and annoy anyone they dislike. I hope Anonymous figures this out and starts abusing the process,then we might see some attention given to the issue.
It coul happen. If a Watson-based program can automate just the more routine aspects of the job, and do so better than an army of clerks, then it may allow a lawyer to handle twice as many cases at once. Which means half as many lawyers needed.
They are spending a huge amount of money on advancing Watson right now. The intention seems obvious to me: Advance the technology to the point where, even if not a true science-fictiony AI, it can be applied to solving a lot of practical business situations. Then sell Watson not as a product but as a service - the technology isn't going to be usable without some highly trained specialists to maintain it. Think call-center positions: A rack of servers running it could take the place of hundreds of front-line telephone operators, and anything Watson can't handle can still be passed through to the humans at second-line. Or specialized search engines - how many legal firms would pay for access to a service where one could ask the computer 'Analyse this brief and tell me of any previous similar cases?' IBM won't be running that, but they'll be supplying the technology to whoever does.
Between the sale of manufacturing and their substantial R&D investment in Watson technology, it appears they are betting the company on being a support services provider in future.
Manufacturing left America because China et al are cheaper. They are cheaper because they have minimal environmental regulations, a huge pool of labor willing to work for starvation wages, no workers' rights and no health-and-safety.
The only way you're bringing manufacturing back is either blatant protectionism (which would be a diplomatic mess and likely result in retaliatory action in kind) or to beat China at their own game by returning to the days when many employees worked sixteen-hour days just to cover the rent, occasionally losing a hand in the machines was an acceptable risk and major cities were often covered by lethal levels of smog.
Destroying parts on demand isn't hard. Just takes a small explosive charge. I'm guessing they want pre-stressed instead because it would be lighter, more compact, and safe to trigger in proximity to a soldier's body. I'm thinking less of top-secret radar equipment and more of field radios and other communication gear. I know that DARPA is very keen on the 'connected soldier.'
I'm thinking games consoles. A self-destruct-on-tamper device to prevent reverse-engineering and modding, perhaps triggered by a firmware image that matches the integrity hash but not the signing key. It would mean anyone trying to reverse-engineer the device would probably burn through a great many of them before they learned enough to avoid triggering the auto-destruct, which would price many out of the attempt.
Except that due to the extreme complexity of computer products, it's practically impossible to make anything non-trivial that isn't initially riddled with defects.
For a time. Short-term bonus, but long-term loss if other contestants start to imitate.
They'll probably let him play the rest of the season, then hold a big meeting and find some way to slightly adjust the rules to make sure future games stay entertaining.
The classic 'American dream' is possibility. It's the idea that anyone can potentially work their way to great success, regardless of starting position. Even if they are born in poverty. It may be very difficult, but it can be done. There are plenty of examples of people who did it via some mix of skill, luck and hard work. This is in contrast to the old way, where family background defined one's role in society to a much greater extent.
More critically though, the dream could be seen as an ideal that masks the truth: While it may be possible for a person to work their way to success, the odds are really stacked against them. For every one who succeeds, a million struggle all their lives and fail. It's a hell of a lot easier to become a great person if you come from a background that gives you access to money and upper-class connections. The US may have no official nobility, but they still have a de facto ruling class.
Wouldn't it be nice if Intel could use some form of consistant branding scheme? Those specs actually look half-decent - not a class I'd expect to see labeled as a 'Celeron.' That term has mostly been used for the budget chips, generally ones seriously short on cache.
Slashdot Mirror
"Any jobs you know of require an ability to think independently and analyze available evidence?"
I work in helldesk.
"How about an accurate view of themselves and how they relate to the world and living things?"
Any human who could truly comprehend their place in the universe on an emotional level as well as intellectual would probably jump off the nearest tall building. False stories can still provide comfort.
Interesting argument, but not really true. Very few jobs require an understanding of evolution to earn a living. Biologist, of course. Perhaps some areas of computer science just about touch it. Anything else? Not really.
They don't really have any scientists. They have 'scientists.' With the quote marks. Generally the prominant creationists either have no qualifications, have dubious qualifications from a very unreputable institution, or hold a respectable qualification but in an unrelated field. They do seem to score a lot of engineers - people who are trained to see everything in terms of design - but that's about it.
The Discovery Institute produced a list once of creation scientists. But even their search couldn't actually find any significent number, so they had to resort to padding the list with engineers and outright lying about the views of some of them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Only when there are other theories worthy of discussion. As far as scientific credibility goes, creationism is ridiculous. I'm all for silencing any discussion of creationism in schools - alongside astrology, palm-reading and other fields of nonsense.
Is that per-block? If it's the same as the older games, I expect the smallest useful room size is 3x3, so you need to mine at least ten blocks to make a room (including the access corridoor. The slowest single-block mining is 24h. So it's quite possible for a single room to take upwards of a week.
There's something of an elephant in the room with ReactOS: If it ever got good enough to become a viable alternative to Windows, it's likely that Microsoft would unleash an army of lawyers upon it. But so long as it remains nothing more than a niche tool to run legacy apps that newer versions of Windows can't, they have to reason to do so.
It's also not unknown for copyright holders to send takedowns against their own legitimate distributors, or for things they don't own. The process is automated - bots use a combination of pattern-matching and whitelisting, but are prone to mistakes.
Short term, yes. But if EA gets away with this, other developers are sure to follow, and the loss of an effective ratings would seriously hurt the play store's reputation - pontentially easily doing enough financial damage in lost business to offset whatever they make from this one game.
Every site on the internet somehow spawned a series of like-tweet-plus1 buttons, and it's becoming impossible to use even the most basic services without an account now. Many blogs and news sites don't allow comments without some sort of social account. It go so annoying I ended up renting a VM just so I could have somewhere uncontaminated to run my own email, website and personal filelocker.
From the review I've seen, the game is effectively unplayable without paying. Without the for-pay speedups, even the simplist construction could take weeks of real-time.
In the obvious cases, yes. But you can't always tell at a glance with things like free-to-download music collections. Then there are things like my own site, which has a large collection of music that does infringe copyright - in the US. I'm in the UK, as is the server, and it's entirely legal over here. I'm very careful about that. Plus there are potential issues with user-generated or submitted content.
Investigations cost money. If the registrar is making $30 a year on a domain, it isn't going to be worth a formal investigation. They might be concerned about getting a reputation as an 'easy takedown.'
You want to see an example, you only need to look at the DMCA and youtube. DMCA complains are a standard tool of visious youtube fights - people DMCA videos that insult them, pseudoscience organisations use DMCA takedowns to take down videos condemning them*, political factions DMCA videos promoting opposing views. Even worse, it's largely automated. Bots take down anything that matches their filters - witness the rather amusing incident of the Hugo awards, which showed a clip (with permission), and found their ustream blocked mid-broadcast because the copyright holder had neglected to whitelist the show's stream channel on their enforcer bot, or the takedown of NASA's coverage of the Curiosity landing because a news channel automatically submitted everything they broadcast to the enforcer-bot.
Investigations cost human time. It's also a risk - humans make errors. Unless you're a major customer, you're not worth that much as an individual. This will be especially true when someone realises that you can take the result from googling 'justin beiber intitle:"index of" ' and feed it straight into the mailer. There's no penalty for submitting false positives.
*The producers of the HIV-denying nonsense 'house of numbers' have been doing a lot of this. Criticise the many, many errors and outright lies in their 'documentary' and you may well find a takedown headed your way.
So,
- Some troublemaker files a false complaint to my registrar who, afraid of liability, immediately kills my domain and takes down not just web but email too.
- Some troublemaker files a false complain to whoever sold microsoft.com and their complaint is forwarded to the trashcan.
It's the DMCA again: Another trick internet bullies can use to silence and annoy anyone they dislike. I hope Anonymous figures this out and starts abusing the process,then we might see some attention given to the issue.
It coul happen. If a Watson-based program can automate just the more routine aspects of the job, and do so better than an army of clerks, then it may allow a lawyer to handle twice as many cases at once. Which means half as many lawyers needed.
They are spending a huge amount of money on advancing Watson right now. The intention seems obvious to me: Advance the technology to the point where, even if not a true science-fictiony AI, it can be applied to solving a lot of practical business situations. Then sell Watson not as a product but as a service - the technology isn't going to be usable without some highly trained specialists to maintain it. Think call-center positions: A rack of servers running it could take the place of hundreds of front-line telephone operators, and anything Watson can't handle can still be passed through to the humans at second-line. Or specialized search engines - how many legal firms would pay for access to a service where one could ask the computer 'Analyse this brief and tell me of any previous similar cases?' IBM won't be running that, but they'll be supplying the technology to whoever does.
Between the sale of manufacturing and their substantial R&D investment in Watson technology, it appears they are betting the company on being a support services provider in future.
Manufacturing left America because China et al are cheaper. They are cheaper because they have minimal environmental regulations, a huge pool of labor willing to work for starvation wages, no workers' rights and no health-and-safety.
The only way you're bringing manufacturing back is either blatant protectionism (which would be a diplomatic mess and likely result in retaliatory action in kind) or to beat China at their own game by returning to the days when many employees worked sixteen-hour days just to cover the rent, occasionally losing a hand in the machines was an acceptable risk and major cities were often covered by lethal levels of smog.
Destroying parts on demand isn't hard. Just takes a small explosive charge. I'm guessing they want pre-stressed instead because it would be lighter, more compact, and safe to trigger in proximity to a soldier's body. I'm thinking less of top-secret radar equipment and more of field radios and other communication gear. I know that DARPA is very keen on the 'connected soldier.'
I'm thinking games consoles. A self-destruct-on-tamper device to prevent reverse-engineering and modding, perhaps triggered by a firmware image that matches the integrity hash but not the signing key. It would mean anyone trying to reverse-engineer the device would probably burn through a great many of them before they learned enough to avoid triggering the auto-destruct, which would price many out of the attempt.
We had that problem in the UK. So we built a big pumped-storage machine. The efficiency loss isn't good, but it works.
Hours to adjust production. Actually turning one on takes days, so they can't even be turned off when not needed, just turned down.
Anonymous factions DoS each other all the time for fun and practice. They are fairly good at working around it.
Except that due to the extreme complexity of computer products, it's practically impossible to make anything non-trivial that isn't initially riddled with defects.
For a time. Short-term bonus, but long-term loss if other contestants start to imitate.
They'll probably let him play the rest of the season, then hold a big meeting and find some way to slightly adjust the rules to make sure future games stay entertaining.
The classic 'American dream' is possibility. It's the idea that anyone can potentially work their way to great success, regardless of starting position. Even if they are born in poverty. It may be very difficult, but it can be done. There are plenty of examples of people who did it via some mix of skill, luck and hard work. This is in contrast to the old way, where family background defined one's role in society to a much greater extent.
More critically though, the dream could be seen as an ideal that masks the truth: While it may be possible for a person to work their way to success, the odds are really stacked against them. For every one who succeeds, a million struggle all their lives and fail. It's a hell of a lot easier to become a great person if you come from a background that gives you access to money and upper-class connections. The US may have no official nobility, but they still have a de facto ruling class.
Wouldn't it be nice if Intel could use some form of consistant branding scheme? Those specs actually look half-decent - not a class I'd expect to see labeled as a 'Celeron.' That term has mostly been used for the budget chips, generally ones seriously short on cache.