That's only for sites with invalid certs. HTTP sites will just get a little icon. There's no reason ever to throw up interstitial pages for that... and a *very* good reason for doing so with certs that don't match the site that provided them.
If there was an actual economy still going on, investors would probably gladly invest into something more stable, but given the choice, what else can they pump their money into?
Nonsense. There are plenty of places you can put your money that will give you a net return after inflation, even plenty that will provide 8-10% annual returns with reasonable reliability (in the long run).
What there aren't is many places that will give you those sorts of returns monthly, or daily. BTC's actual use gave it some real value, but that meant that the growth from "basically nothing" to "something" was an eye-popping return. That eye-popping return attracted more speculation, which attracted more speculation, and so on until it grew enough that actual use (actual value) has all but evaporated. It's that speculative bubble which has attracted the money, not the lack of sensible, reasonable alternatives.
Any techie who is a proponent of a cryptocurrency is one who should not be employed in any capacity beyond desktop support.
You go too far here. BTC sucks for a variety of reasons, but cryptocurrencies aren't any more inherently foolish than using precious metals as a currency. Arguably a little less, since we have more reason to believe that huge quantities of a given cryptocurrency can't suddenly be added to the market. A massive new gold mine, or someone towing a gold-laden asteroid into orbit, or a much cheaper method for creating gold from other metals... any of these could happen. The asteroid is at least a few years away, but the others could happen without warning.
Cryptocurrencies do have some inherent disadvantages as compared to the fiat currencies we normally use. One of them is that they tend to be deflationary. For lots of good reasons, we prefer our currencies to undergo constant mild inflation. The other major disadvantage is the status of "legal tender", meaning that by law creditors are required to accept the currency as payment which ensures widespread usage. Lacking that forcing function any cryptocurrency has to establish its usage organically.
As far as advantages go... cryptocurrencies can enable some value exchanges that aren't feasible with fiat currencies, or at least are more difficult. Anonymous transactions (which BTC doesn't really support, but that's a design defect, not a conceptual limitation) and remote transactions -- including across borders -- without requiring a clearinghouse are the big ones. For example, for a while BTC served a useful purpose for moving money between currencies with very low transaction fees, until the BTC transaction fees and delays got too high.
A realistic technical and pragmatic analysis of cryptocurrencies shouldn't lead you to either convert your life savings to one or to rail against the concept. They are a potentially-useful tool, if designed and implemented correctly.
That said, last time I was near the Google Maps HQ, I had a look at Google Maps and OpenStreetMap and found that the OSM data was better.
OSM data is very hit and miss. It's great in areas where there are a lot of contributors (or a few very dedicated contributors), and very weak elsewhere. Google Maps comes more from automated data collection systems and is more consistent (with big differences between areas that get regular low-altitude aerial imagery taken and those that don't). It makes perfect sense that it's great around Google HQ, because there are lots of geeky engineers regularly in that area, including many who are very interested in mapping.
Offline maps was actually only gone for a couple of weeks. It was forgotten in a UI revamp and then quickly added back, but in a completely non-intuitive and non-discoverable way, more like an easter egg than a visible feature. I don't even remember offhand what the magic sequence of actions to get an offline map was.
Another one they still don't have (I think) is search based layers, replaced most closely with the ability to search and add a waypoint to your route (I usually used it to have a gas station layer on long trips).
I'm not sure what you mean by "search based layers". You can search for and add waypoints now, though. Just start navigation, then do a search and it will search along your route.
Meh. It's a rather obvious (to anyone who's studied statistics) fact that small differences in means of normally-distributed populations create large differences in the proportion of populations far from the mean. Small differences in variance do the same.
But that's only relevant when you're looking for people who are far from the mean. In professional basketball, you're looking for people who are 600 standard deviations from the mean in basketball ability (assuming the NBA really has the best 500 players in the population of 200M adults, they represent the top 0.00025% of the population, which is 632 standard deviations from the mean). In most situations, 600-sigma is not the goal.
That's an interesting example, though, because it's one where the distributions clearly end up favoring one race, yet no one complains (other than racists). If you were to create a well-performing professional basketball scouting algorithm it's vanishingly unlikely that the algorithm would take much note of a race parameter, even if one were explicitly provided. Why? Because height is a much stronger indicator than race, and actual basketball performance is the best indicator of all, and we have lots of basketball performance statistics.
So, an analysis like the one NYC is proposing of the basketball scouting algorithm results would show a marked bias in favor of black players, and a marked negative bias against asian and latino players. It would appear -- at first blush -- to be a racist algorithm, even if race were not provided. But as long as the analysis doesn't stop there, it's fine. Because a little deeper look will show that the algorithm is attempting to identify extreme outliers, where we absolutely expect that small differences in distribution of relevant abilities/characteristics in populations will result in large disparities in representation of those populations.
But if only extreme outliers make their mortgage payments on time, we have bigger problems than algorithmic bias. Further, analysis of algorithmic bias will, I expect, often offer strong clues to how to solve social inequality. If, for example, a mortgage-approval algorithm that is not provided with racial information is still racially biased (say, against blacks) when evaluating blacks and whites that have the same economic status, then we have an opportunity to dig a little deeper into why there is a difference. Perhaps it's spurious and the algorithm is just rejecting applications from a part of town with a high black population, because many people in that part of town have low or inconsistent incomes and the reliable earners from the same area are being tarred unfairly with the unreliability of their neighbors. That sort of thing often arises from poor training practices (and most training practices are poor), and those should be identified and fixed.
The high likelihood that many of the algorithms are bad, in the sense that they produce inaccurately biased outputs, is reason enough for a little oversight, at least until there is sufficient competition to drive bad algorithms out.
But maybe it's real, and derives from deeper issues. Maybe because their communities are poor, black borrowers don't have the same financial resources to help them out when hit the occasional rough patch. If my kids can't make their mortgage payment one month because the car broke down, they know I can and will help out (to a limit; I expect them to gradually build more financial stability than that -- and I will give them financial advice which is another form of financial resource). But, what about the young black man whose dad is a doctor and has exactly the same sort of financial backstop that my kids do? The fact that such things are less common in black communities than white communities doesn't mean the individuals who do have those additional resources should be penalized. So... perhaps the algorithm is being inaccurately biased because it doesn't have enough data.
What if, just maybe, beyond skin color, there are genetic differences between the races in how people value life, truth, and their propensity to violence. This is where people want to bury their heads in the sand. It's time we get honest and accept these truths.
Oh, bullshit. There's nothing "head burying" about wanting to treat people fairly. Even assuming the racial differences you posit exist (assuming race actually exists as a coherent and well-defined thing, which is debatable [1]), the racial differences are utterly swamped by individual differences, so it makes no sense whatsoever to make assumptions about individuals based on racial characteristics. Supposing, to take one example, African Americans score lower on IQ tests because they're not as smart, on average, as white Americans, rather than because the tests are culturally-biased. Does that mean Thomas Sowell is dumb?
The same applies across the board. Outside of the specific characteristics that we use to categorize people into races, all of the various potential statistical differences between groups are utterly dominated by individual differences.
And even if that weren't true. So what? Wouldn't you rather live in a world where every individual has an equal opportunity regardless of the elements of themselves that they can't change or control? For that matter, wouldn't you rather live in a world where society even attempts to make reasonable accommodation for individual differences, and even arguable deficiencies?
I sure as hell would.
So this is absolutely the right thing to do. Algorithmic decisionmaking is a fantastically useful and powerful tool that we're applying to improve human lives. Scrutinizing those algorithmic decisions to search for evidence of bias and then figuring out how to offset, mitigate or manage that bias is the right thing to do -- and that's true even if the bias has some legitimate statistical basis. And it's especially true if it does not, but we'll never know if we don't look.
[1] One of the most interesting studies of recent years about race came to the rather surprising conclusion that going to prison makes you black. A longitudinal study of racial self-identification and social identification found that many people who self-identified as non-black before being sent to prison self-identified as black after going to prison. Further, those self-identifications correlated strongly with third-party identifications by census workers, social workers and others who were asked to racially categorize people. People who are consistently non-black before imprisonment come out of prison as black. This is powerful evidence that a significant element of what we call "race" is a purely social construct.
Free housing is available if you just don't smoke or drink on the premises. I have a friend who sleeps on the street because he'd rather smoke than have shelter.
In addition to the fact that your friend's shelter has strings attached (in contrast to what I said works), it should also be pointed out that one counterexample doesn't disprove the general case. We're talking about people, not theorems. There actually is a very small minority of chronically homeless whose illness is so severe that they will remain on the streets even when offered no-strings-attached shelter. But they are a very small minority.
"I'm no expert at anything, but I know that's a fact."
This is the quote of 2017.
Indeed. It should be understood, though, that the apparent disclaimer "I'm no expert at anything" is actually intended to be -- and is understood as by its target audience -- an appeal to authority. There's a significant percentage of the US population that has gotten so annoyed with and dismissive of experts that they actually see not being an expert at anything as a positive qualification (except with respect to practical stuff they know they don't know, where they want an expert).
This opposition to education and knowledge has always been a feature of US politics, and is derived largely from opposition to the historical reverence of Yankees for education and knowledge, but it's seen a strong resurgence of late as all sorts of systems have become increasingly more complex and less accessible to non-experts.
It's interesting that "evidence-based" and "science-based" should be thrown into the ban-bin with "fetus" and "transgender" as terms that are likely to cause an unfavorable Congressional reaction.
"Interesting". I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Free housing is available if you just don't smoke or drink on the premises. I have a friend who sleeps on the street because he'd rather smoke than have shelter.
The shelter has strings attached. You're right, that doesn't work, which is why I specified that it must not.
The more VR spread, the more apparent it became how biological incompatible it is with the majority of people.
Project Tango wasn't about VR. It was somewhat about AR, but not very much, or perhaps it's more precise to say that AR was a stretch goal. Mostly it was about 3D mapping of the environment.
You didn't read the summary. Google isn't abandoning the goals of project Tango, just the approach. They think they can do it with typical cameras and software, rather than needing specialized hardware.
No, money can't address that. These are mentally ill people. Many of them aren't even aware where they are. You cannot just hand them a free house and counseling and expect it to be OK. The problem is that there is no way to force people to seek treatment for their mental problems.
You don't know what you're talking about. You've never worked with homeless people.
Of course it would. The web existed before web advertising and the web would continue to exist without web advertising.
Of course the web would exist. Most of the content on the web however, would not. Nearly everything of quality that did exist would be paywalled or have continual banners begging for donations (the prevalence of ad-blockers is driving many news outlets in this direction). Search engines would be paywalled, or limited mostly to searching sites that themselves are paywalled, and pay the search engine for listing. Much content would be "implicit advertising", with content sponsored by some commercial entity and hosted adjacent to that commercial entity's on-line storefront.
Without advertising, the web would exist, but it would be much less interesting. Most of the services people use regularly would not exist.
Homelessness cannot be cured by money. Most homeless people are mentally ill.
Yes and no. Yes, most homeless people are mentally ill, but their illness doesn't make them want to live on the streets, it just makes them unwilling or unable to do all of the things required to obtain and maintain a residence. Money can address this by giving them a place to live, fully paid for and furnished, including utilities and maintenance, no strings attached and with no requirement that they get along with others or do anything else they're unable to do. On top of that, money can provide counseling and health care. In such an environment, many of the homeless do get better, at least somewhat.
This is an approach that has proven to work quite well with the chronically homeless. Very few of them choose to return to the streets. Many of them kick their addictions. Some of them get jobs. A few actually build back up to self-sufficiency.
An analog FM signal slowly fades over distance. A digital radio signal is fine one moment, than nothing, and the nothing happens at a much closer range.
You mean an FM signal gradually fills with static.
I consider this to be a huge advantage of digital radio, because I have a very low tolerance for static. If I can't get a clear signal, give me silence. This wouldn't be such a problem except that it always seems that everyone else in the car has a much higher tolerance and doesn't want me to turn the static-filled radio station off.
Of course, I also have a very low tolerance for too-frequent, too-long, and too-loud ad breaks. And for guffawing DJs who don't know how to shut up. Digital radio will do nothing to fix those problems, unfortunately.
Lying to investigators is a crime and guilty pleas are convictions. If you actually need a citation, then you haven't been following closely.
To be a pedant, no conviction has occurred, unless something happened when I wasn't paying attention. A plea bargain between prosecutors and accused in which the accused will be agreeing to plead guilty to a crime will lead to a conviction but the conviction does not occur until the charges are brought forth before a court and judge.
Papadopolous and Flynn have both formally pleaded guilty to a US district court, not just made an agreement with the prosecutor. AFAICT neither has been sentenced.
We now have a couple of criminal convictions, even.
That would be news to those of us who have been following this very closely. Please provide a citation.
Lying to investigators is a crime and guilty pleas are convictions. If you actually need a citation, then you haven't been following closely.
Of course, lying to investigators isn't evidence of an actual conspiracy to do anything, though it looks very bad. The charges against Gates and Manfort are much more substantial, but not related to the Trump campaign.
My guess is that Trump and his staff are too incompetent to have really colluded with the Russians to subvert the election. Putin decided to do what he could to manipulate the election on his own, and that it's impossible to know whether Trump would have lost without the Russian interference (I'd guess that Comey's October surprise had a bigger effect than everything Russia did). Russia did reach out to the Trump campaign (that's well-supported), and the Trump campaign was willing to cooperate but I suspect nothing happened that Putin wasn't already doing anyway, and the Russians were cagey enough not to say anything openly enough that the Trump staffers had a legal obligation to report it to the FBI. Which is good for the Trump team because they were too clueless to have realized they had such an obligation.
So, I think the way this is going to work out is that Mueller is going to shake a lot of trees and a lot of dirt is going to fall out, because Trump is dirty and the people he works with are dirtier. Little of the dirt will be related to the election. Trump will probably have been sufficiently well-insulated from the dirt to escape prosecution, but the issue will dog his entire term of office, and his remaining three years in office will be even less effective than his first, assuming he lasts out his term. I give it even odds that some combination of health and stress over the investigation get him to resign or be removed under the 25th. There's also a chance that he gets frustrated and decides to try to shut down the investigation, which would generate a huge backlash, and probably convince GOP leaders to impeach him in self-defense.
I get the distinct feeling they're not actually making these movies for the sake of making movies anymore. It's entirely and utterly driven by profit, and very little else.
It's adorable that you ever thought that the movie industry wasn't all about making money. Yes sometimes some good art got made along the way. But the movie industry has been ruthlessly profit driven as long as there has been a movie industry.
I don't get why people seem so offended by the idea that people make and sell stuff to make money. I mean, unless you're a trust fund baby, don't you do whatever you do for a living, for a living? I'm a programmer. I really enjoy writing code, it's a creative effort that includes both art and science. But at the end of the day, I write the code that I do because it pays the bills. Actors, directors, producers, cameramen, sound engineers, film editors, etc., all do the same thing. Not only is it not a crime to work for financial gain, the profit motive is one of the most significant drivers of human progress, because the most effective way to make money is by making/doing something that other people want, and want enough that they're willing to pay for it.
I'm not claiming that profit should be the only motive. In fact, that ways lies trouble, because in the short term maximizing profit can often be done at the expense of other desirable goals. But for any endeavor that requires large scale, generating profit is almost always a good idea. Profit-generating enterprises are sustainable and scalable in a way that profit-losing or even profit-neutral enterprises are not.
If you have derived pleasure from watching previous episodes of the Star Wars movies -- or almost any other films, especially the big-budget variety -- you can thank the profit motive. Certainly the people who made them had other motives as well, but without that one the movies we enjoy would not be created, and it always has and most likely always will be that way. The same goes for all of the goods and services you rely on in your life. People make stuff and do stuff in exchange for money so they can buy the stuff they want/need. This is a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
That's only for sites with invalid certs. HTTP sites will just get a little icon. There's no reason ever to throw up interstitial pages for that ... and a *very* good reason for doing so with certs that don't match the site that provided them.
If there was an actual economy still going on, investors would probably gladly invest into something more stable, but given the choice, what else can they pump their money into?
Nonsense. There are plenty of places you can put your money that will give you a net return after inflation, even plenty that will provide 8-10% annual returns with reasonable reliability (in the long run).
What there aren't is many places that will give you those sorts of returns monthly, or daily. BTC's actual use gave it some real value, but that meant that the growth from "basically nothing" to "something" was an eye-popping return. That eye-popping return attracted more speculation, which attracted more speculation, and so on until it grew enough that actual use (actual value) has all but evaporated. It's that speculative bubble which has attracted the money, not the lack of sensible, reasonable alternatives.
Any techie who is a proponent of a cryptocurrency is one who should not be employed in any capacity beyond desktop support.
You go too far here. BTC sucks for a variety of reasons, but cryptocurrencies aren't any more inherently foolish than using precious metals as a currency. Arguably a little less, since we have more reason to believe that huge quantities of a given cryptocurrency can't suddenly be added to the market. A massive new gold mine, or someone towing a gold-laden asteroid into orbit, or a much cheaper method for creating gold from other metals... any of these could happen. The asteroid is at least a few years away, but the others could happen without warning.
Cryptocurrencies do have some inherent disadvantages as compared to the fiat currencies we normally use. One of them is that they tend to be deflationary. For lots of good reasons, we prefer our currencies to undergo constant mild inflation. The other major disadvantage is the status of "legal tender", meaning that by law creditors are required to accept the currency as payment which ensures widespread usage. Lacking that forcing function any cryptocurrency has to establish its usage organically.
As far as advantages go... cryptocurrencies can enable some value exchanges that aren't feasible with fiat currencies, or at least are more difficult. Anonymous transactions (which BTC doesn't really support, but that's a design defect, not a conceptual limitation) and remote transactions -- including across borders -- without requiring a clearinghouse are the big ones. For example, for a while BTC served a useful purpose for moving money between currencies with very low transaction fees, until the BTC transaction fees and delays got too high.
A realistic technical and pragmatic analysis of cryptocurrencies shouldn't lead you to either convert your life savings to one or to rail against the concept. They are a potentially-useful tool, if designed and implemented correctly.
That said, last time I was near the Google Maps HQ, I had a look at Google Maps and OpenStreetMap and found that the OSM data was better.
OSM data is very hit and miss. It's great in areas where there are a lot of contributors (or a few very dedicated contributors), and very weak elsewhere. Google Maps comes more from automated data collection systems and is more consistent (with big differences between areas that get regular low-altitude aerial imagery taken and those that don't). It makes perfect sense that it's great around Google HQ, because there are lots of geeky engineers regularly in that area, including many who are very interested in mapping.
Offline maps came back after over a year
Offline maps was actually only gone for a couple of weeks. It was forgotten in a UI revamp and then quickly added back, but in a completely non-intuitive and non-discoverable way, more like an easter egg than a visible feature. I don't even remember offhand what the magic sequence of actions to get an offline map was.
Another one they still don't have (I think) is search based layers, replaced most closely with the ability to search and add a waypoint to your route (I usually used it to have a gas station layer on long trips).
I'm not sure what you mean by "search based layers". You can search for and add waypoints now, though. Just start navigation, then do a search and it will search along your route.
Meh. It's a rather obvious (to anyone who's studied statistics) fact that small differences in means of normally-distributed populations create large differences in the proportion of populations far from the mean. Small differences in variance do the same.
But that's only relevant when you're looking for people who are far from the mean. In professional basketball, you're looking for people who are 600 standard deviations from the mean in basketball ability (assuming the NBA really has the best 500 players in the population of 200M adults, they represent the top 0.00025% of the population, which is 632 standard deviations from the mean). In most situations, 600-sigma is not the goal.
That's an interesting example, though, because it's one where the distributions clearly end up favoring one race, yet no one complains (other than racists). If you were to create a well-performing professional basketball scouting algorithm it's vanishingly unlikely that the algorithm would take much note of a race parameter, even if one were explicitly provided. Why? Because height is a much stronger indicator than race, and actual basketball performance is the best indicator of all, and we have lots of basketball performance statistics.
So, an analysis like the one NYC is proposing of the basketball scouting algorithm results would show a marked bias in favor of black players, and a marked negative bias against asian and latino players. It would appear -- at first blush -- to be a racist algorithm, even if race were not provided. But as long as the analysis doesn't stop there, it's fine. Because a little deeper look will show that the algorithm is attempting to identify extreme outliers, where we absolutely expect that small differences in distribution of relevant abilities/characteristics in populations will result in large disparities in representation of those populations.
But if only extreme outliers make their mortgage payments on time, we have bigger problems than algorithmic bias. Further, analysis of algorithmic bias will, I expect, often offer strong clues to how to solve social inequality. If, for example, a mortgage-approval algorithm that is not provided with racial information is still racially biased (say, against blacks) when evaluating blacks and whites that have the same economic status, then we have an opportunity to dig a little deeper into why there is a difference. Perhaps it's spurious and the algorithm is just rejecting applications from a part of town with a high black population, because many people in that part of town have low or inconsistent incomes and the reliable earners from the same area are being tarred unfairly with the unreliability of their neighbors. That sort of thing often arises from poor training practices (and most training practices are poor), and those should be identified and fixed.
The high likelihood that many of the algorithms are bad, in the sense that they produce inaccurately biased outputs, is reason enough for a little oversight, at least until there is sufficient competition to drive bad algorithms out.
But maybe it's real, and derives from deeper issues. Maybe because their communities are poor, black borrowers don't have the same financial resources to help them out when hit the occasional rough patch. If my kids can't make their mortgage payment one month because the car broke down, they know I can and will help out (to a limit; I expect them to gradually build more financial stability than that -- and I will give them financial advice which is another form of financial resource). But, what about the young black man whose dad is a doctor and has exactly the same sort of financial backstop that my kids do? The fact that such things are less common in black communities than white communities doesn't mean the individuals who do have those additional resources should be penalized. So... perhaps the algorithm is being inaccurately biased because it doesn't have enough data.
Or -- even better -- perhaps rathe
What if, just maybe, beyond skin color, there are genetic differences between the races in how people value life, truth, and their propensity to violence. This is where people want to bury their heads in the sand. It's time we get honest and accept these truths.
Oh, bullshit. There's nothing "head burying" about wanting to treat people fairly. Even assuming the racial differences you posit exist (assuming race actually exists as a coherent and well-defined thing, which is debatable [1]), the racial differences are utterly swamped by individual differences, so it makes no sense whatsoever to make assumptions about individuals based on racial characteristics. Supposing, to take one example, African Americans score lower on IQ tests because they're not as smart, on average, as white Americans, rather than because the tests are culturally-biased. Does that mean Thomas Sowell is dumb?
The same applies across the board. Outside of the specific characteristics that we use to categorize people into races, all of the various potential statistical differences between groups are utterly dominated by individual differences.
And even if that weren't true. So what? Wouldn't you rather live in a world where every individual has an equal opportunity regardless of the elements of themselves that they can't change or control? For that matter, wouldn't you rather live in a world where society even attempts to make reasonable accommodation for individual differences, and even arguable deficiencies?
I sure as hell would.
So this is absolutely the right thing to do. Algorithmic decisionmaking is a fantastically useful and powerful tool that we're applying to improve human lives. Scrutinizing those algorithmic decisions to search for evidence of bias and then figuring out how to offset, mitigate or manage that bias is the right thing to do -- and that's true even if the bias has some legitimate statistical basis. And it's especially true if it does not, but we'll never know if we don't look.
[1] One of the most interesting studies of recent years about race came to the rather surprising conclusion that going to prison makes you black. A longitudinal study of racial self-identification and social identification found that many people who self-identified as non-black before being sent to prison self-identified as black after going to prison. Further, those self-identifications correlated strongly with third-party identifications by census workers, social workers and others who were asked to racially categorize people. People who are consistently non-black before imprisonment come out of prison as black. This is powerful evidence that a significant element of what we call "race" is a purely social construct.
I have, and he's correct.
Free housing is available if you just don't smoke or drink on the premises. I have a friend who sleeps on the street because he'd rather smoke than have shelter.
In addition to the fact that your friend's shelter has strings attached (in contrast to what I said works), it should also be pointed out that one counterexample doesn't disprove the general case. We're talking about people, not theorems. There actually is a very small minority of chronically homeless whose illness is so severe that they will remain on the streets even when offered no-strings-attached shelter. But they are a very small minority.
This is the quote of 2017.
Indeed. It should be understood, though, that the apparent disclaimer "I'm no expert at anything" is actually intended to be -- and is understood as by its target audience -- an appeal to authority. There's a significant percentage of the US population that has gotten so annoyed with and dismissive of experts that they actually see not being an expert at anything as a positive qualification (except with respect to practical stuff they know they don't know, where they want an expert).
This opposition to education and knowledge has always been a feature of US politics, and is derived largely from opposition to the historical reverence of Yankees for education and knowledge, but it's seen a strong resurgence of late as all sorts of systems have become increasingly more complex and less accessible to non-experts.
I still can't believe the parent post is +5 insightful. It's BS.
Actually, it's sarcasm. PopeRatzo figured people knew him well enough to know that, or would get it from the use of "evidence-based" in the subject.
Can't trust cameras. How do you know the picture you get back from it hasn't been tampered with by The Conspiracy?
If you fly up 60 miles, how do you know the memory you have in your brain hasn't been tampered with by The Conspiracy.
It's interesting that "evidence-based" and "science-based" should be thrown into the ban-bin with "fetus" and "transgender" as terms that are likely to cause an unfavorable Congressional reaction.
"Interesting". I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Free housing is available if you just don't smoke or drink on the premises. I have a friend who sleeps on the street because he'd rather smoke than have shelter.
The shelter has strings attached. You're right, that doesn't work, which is why I specified that it must not.
The more VR spread, the more apparent it became how biological incompatible it is with the majority of people.
Project Tango wasn't about VR. It was somewhat about AR, but not very much, or perhaps it's more precise to say that AR was a stretch goal. Mostly it was about 3D mapping of the environment.
You didn't read the summary. Google isn't abandoning the goals of project Tango, just the approach. They think they can do it with typical cameras and software, rather than needing specialized hardware.
Sorry but bullshit because we used to have a web that functioned just fine with only ads that were TXT or JPG
The topic under discussion was a web without ads, not a web with different kinds of ads.
No, money can't address that. These are mentally ill people. Many of them aren't even aware where they are. You cannot just hand them a free house and counseling and expect it to be OK. The problem is that there is no way to force people to seek treatment for their mental problems.
You don't know what you're talking about. You've never worked with homeless people.
Without advertising, the web wouldn't exist.
Of course it would. The web existed before web advertising and the web would continue to exist without web advertising.
Of course the web would exist. Most of the content on the web however, would not. Nearly everything of quality that did exist would be paywalled or have continual banners begging for donations (the prevalence of ad-blockers is driving many news outlets in this direction). Search engines would be paywalled, or limited mostly to searching sites that themselves are paywalled, and pay the search engine for listing. Much content would be "implicit advertising", with content sponsored by some commercial entity and hosted adjacent to that commercial entity's on-line storefront.
Without advertising, the web would exist, but it would be much less interesting. Most of the services people use regularly would not exist.
Homelessness cannot be cured by money. Most homeless people are mentally ill.
Yes and no. Yes, most homeless people are mentally ill, but their illness doesn't make them want to live on the streets, it just makes them unwilling or unable to do all of the things required to obtain and maintain a residence. Money can address this by giving them a place to live, fully paid for and furnished, including utilities and maintenance, no strings attached and with no requirement that they get along with others or do anything else they're unable to do. On top of that, money can provide counseling and health care. In such an environment, many of the homeless do get better, at least somewhat.
This is an approach that has proven to work quite well with the chronically homeless. Very few of them choose to return to the streets. Many of them kick their addictions. Some of them get jobs. A few actually build back up to self-sufficiency.
An analog FM signal slowly fades over distance. A digital radio signal is fine one moment, than nothing, and the nothing happens at a much closer range.
You mean an FM signal gradually fills with static.
I consider this to be a huge advantage of digital radio, because I have a very low tolerance for static. If I can't get a clear signal, give me silence. This wouldn't be such a problem except that it always seems that everyone else in the car has a much higher tolerance and doesn't want me to turn the static-filled radio station off.
Of course, I also have a very low tolerance for too-frequent, too-long, and too-loud ad breaks. And for guffawing DJs who don't know how to shut up. Digital radio will do nothing to fix those problems, unfortunately.
As well, there is no advantage bandwidth wise.
This is simply false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So, nothing from any official source.
One month from today, they intend to release 1.2 million documents.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Lying to investigators is a crime and guilty pleas are convictions. If you actually need a citation, then you haven't been following closely.
To be a pedant, no conviction has occurred, unless something happened when I wasn't paying attention. A plea bargain between prosecutors and accused in which the accused will be agreeing to plead guilty to a crime will lead to a conviction but the conviction does not occur until the charges are brought forth before a court and judge.
Papadopolous and Flynn have both formally pleaded guilty to a US district court, not just made an agreement with the prosecutor. AFAICT neither has been sentenced.
The dirt isn't falling on Trump or his people, it is falling on Mueller's "investigators".
Please provide a citation.
That would be news to those of us who have been following this very closely. Please provide a citation.
Lying to investigators is a crime and guilty pleas are convictions. If you actually need a citation, then you haven't been following closely.
Of course, lying to investigators isn't evidence of an actual conspiracy to do anything, though it looks very bad. The charges against Gates and Manfort are much more substantial, but not related to the Trump campaign.
My guess is that Trump and his staff are too incompetent to have really colluded with the Russians to subvert the election. Putin decided to do what he could to manipulate the election on his own, and that it's impossible to know whether Trump would have lost without the Russian interference (I'd guess that Comey's October surprise had a bigger effect than everything Russia did). Russia did reach out to the Trump campaign (that's well-supported), and the Trump campaign was willing to cooperate but I suspect nothing happened that Putin wasn't already doing anyway, and the Russians were cagey enough not to say anything openly enough that the Trump staffers had a legal obligation to report it to the FBI. Which is good for the Trump team because they were too clueless to have realized they had such an obligation.
So, I think the way this is going to work out is that Mueller is going to shake a lot of trees and a lot of dirt is going to fall out, because Trump is dirty and the people he works with are dirtier. Little of the dirt will be related to the election. Trump will probably have been sufficiently well-insulated from the dirt to escape prosecution, but the issue will dog his entire term of office, and his remaining three years in office will be even less effective than his first, assuming he lasts out his term. I give it even odds that some combination of health and stress over the investigation get him to resign or be removed under the 25th. There's also a chance that he gets frustrated and decides to try to shut down the investigation, which would generate a huge backlash, and probably convince GOP leaders to impeach him in self-defense.
I get the distinct feeling they're not actually making these movies for the sake of making movies anymore. It's entirely and utterly driven by profit, and very little else.
It's adorable that you ever thought that the movie industry wasn't all about making money. Yes sometimes some good art got made along the way. But the movie industry has been ruthlessly profit driven as long as there has been a movie industry.
I don't get why people seem so offended by the idea that people make and sell stuff to make money. I mean, unless you're a trust fund baby, don't you do whatever you do for a living, for a living? I'm a programmer. I really enjoy writing code, it's a creative effort that includes both art and science. But at the end of the day, I write the code that I do because it pays the bills. Actors, directors, producers, cameramen, sound engineers, film editors, etc., all do the same thing. Not only is it not a crime to work for financial gain, the profit motive is one of the most significant drivers of human progress, because the most effective way to make money is by making/doing something that other people want, and want enough that they're willing to pay for it.
I'm not claiming that profit should be the only motive. In fact, that ways lies trouble, because in the short term maximizing profit can often be done at the expense of other desirable goals. But for any endeavor that requires large scale, generating profit is almost always a good idea. Profit-generating enterprises are sustainable and scalable in a way that profit-losing or even profit-neutral enterprises are not.
If you have derived pleasure from watching previous episodes of the Star Wars movies -- or almost any other films, especially the big-budget variety -- you can thank the profit motive. Certainly the people who made them had other motives as well, but without that one the movies we enjoy would not be created, and it always has and most likely always will be that way. The same goes for all of the goods and services you rely on in your life. People make stuff and do stuff in exchange for money so they can buy the stuff they want/need. This is a good thing.