Women in general are worse at tech jobs, and therefore, less women want to pursue tech jobs.
MYSTERY SOLVED!
Not so.... This is more about INTEREST than aptitude. Men and Women, in general, have different interests. I may sound sexist to some, but it's obvious to this parent that boys and girls don't just come with different plumbing but are wired differently as well. I've met some excellent programmers in my day, only a few have been women, not because women cannot do the job as well but because few WANTED to do the job in the first place.
I've been at this technical thing for nearly 30 years and I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what you are driving at. What about Asian women bothers you?
Personally, I don't care what gender you are (or think you want to be), what matters to me is how well you can do your job. I've worked with and for both men and women and I don't see any difference that correlates to gender, except for one and that has to do with HR's statistics when they count up how many "F" and "M" boxes get checked (and stupid studies like this one..)
Generally, I don't bother with bullies. Quite frankly, I don't really care what they think or do, so I generally ignore them.
I don't call them idiots, mainly because I don't care if they choose to be one, they don't intimidate me, again because I don't care what they think about me and they rarely bother me given my 6'7" size. If they decided to come after me, it's going to be unprovoked and they will likely have a nasty surprise as I can take care of myself.
I suggest that you might rethink your bravado in cases like this and just keep your mouth shut over calling some idiot what they are. Not because you don't have the right to say what you think, but because it isn't profitable for anybody to air your views and you might save yourself from a beating should they actually best you in the ensuing fight. Some things are just not worth the trouble trying to fix, and idiots are high on that list for me.
The best AI I've seen is stuff that uses techniques which are easy on resources.
The holy grail of AI is something that can run with limited resources and give you reasonably good results and from what I've seen that's not beyond the state of the art today. In fact, I personally think the advancement in AI will only take place once we forget this foolish notion that we can field brut force algorithms for stuff like driving cars where the range of 'acceptable' solutions is pretty wide given a 6 foot wide car going down a 10 foot wide lane. We don't even do that for trains yet, and you don't have to manage the steering wheel, just the throttle and brakes on those things.
Tell me, how do YOU drive a car? Do you have a better than HD set of cameras scanning the area around the car to 1/4" tolerances? Absolutely not. Why do we think we need to brute force this problem in order to do it on a computer? Something tells me we have over engineered this if Intel thinks they will be selling more processing power by being involved.
I get the devil is in the details, but watching my 16 year old learn how to drive does not tell me this is problem takes huge amounts of processing power...
Freedom of speech means you are free to say what you want but it does not mean freedom from consequences when you speak.
That's complete nonsense.
By that logic, I am free to stab you to death, but I'm not free from the consequences of that action. So does that mean we have Freedom of Murder? Clearly not.
Who's claiming you have a right to kill someone? Not I. You apparently do though.
Speech is a protected action in our constitution, murder is not. Actually, speech is a natural right, one we are born with, which happens to be enshrined in the first amendment to our constitution, murder is Neither a natural born right nor is it protected in our constitution. I know of nobody who advocates that murder is a right of any kind, except perhaps for you and/or a serial killer trying to explain why what he did was not wrong. Are you a serial killer? I didn't think so..
You sir, are trying to muddy the water by throwing out the absurd and offering it as a comparison. Your analogy thus fails.
One major problem with that analogy. If I call someone an idiot, that should be protected speech. But there are those who would consider that to be continuing the swing of my fist into that person's nose.
It IS protected speech to call somebody an idiot. It may be stupid, and you may be assaulted by the subject of your remarks, but your right to say what you will is intact even if your face isn't.
If your inflammatory speech leads somebody to assault you, they are breaking the law, and where your words may be used as a defense (as in "any reasonable person would have reacted to being called that!") but it is only like to reduce the penalty when they are found guilty. This is most certainly NOT an infringement on your right to speak your mind.
Hey, just let food stamp EBT cards be used for arms and ammo purchases and not just soda and frozen pizza and we are golden eh? While we are at it, might as well let them buy beer, wine and candy...
I'm guessing they WANTED the NRA to take exception in a loud public way... It's all about calling attention to themselves and their cause by being outrageous. It worked and now we have PR gold (for them)..
The problem here is folks generally misunderstand what the 1st amendment actually says and what it means (actually they generally don't understand ANY of the bill of rights correctly.)
Freedom of speech means you are free to say what you want but it does not mean freedom from consequences when you speak. Sure, say what you want to your boss, it's LEGAL (as in NOT criminal), but don't try and make a 1st amendment case when your boss takes exception and fires you.
So, in this case, the government cannot and will not bring criminal charges, but those who hold the trade marks are apparently ready to make a civil case out of this (which, because they hold the trademark/copyrights is within their rights.) 1st amendment says the government cannot make laws limiting your ability to express your views by making specific kinds of speech illegal (i.e. criminal) (and yes I know there are some limits here). The 1st amendment however does not exempt the speaker from the consequences of their speech. So if you liable or defame someone, the government won't stop you but you can be subject to civil law, where the person wronged can seek civil action to deal with your speech.
Aside from the possible re-vote... I think we should honor their wishes and just pull the tag unilaterally. If for no other reason than to help scare other possible exit voters into voting to stay..
Hey now, my 50Mbps Verizon (err Frontier) connection is blindingly fast I'll tell you.... All the Speed Tests in the world prove it... But somehow, nothing seems to load faster.
This is business as usual for Amazon...They've been doing this for the Kindle's they sell for ages...
But why lock yourself into a kindle/phone that is locked to Amazon's store? Don't know, other than they are CHEAPER that way... Hmmm... Seems Amazon knows how to make money, maybe this will get them into the phone market too... I know I have TWO of those Kindle things in my house right now. Darn good tablets for the price.
I didn't say it was legally impossible, only that Obama wouldn't do it. There is literally nothing in it for him, less than nothing if you get right down to it.
You should see the modding on that post... I've drawn nearly 20 votes, up and down so far... It has been oscillating between 5 and 4 every few hours for over a day now.
This wasn't accidental mishandling even by Hillary's account.... Remember why she claimed to have done this private server thing? Her story went something like "It was too much trouble to carry multiple devices" so she went out and made it more convenient for herself.
Now, if you really have 20 years experience with classified materials, you should know how to identify this stuff. Apparently, there was readily identifiable as classified information on her unclassified server (i.e. it had the MARKINGS still in place) not to mention over 3,000 E-mail messages which held classified content, some at such a high level they cannot be released even in redacted form. She and her staff where NOT being careful, they where being negligent, repeatedly in placing classified information in their unclassified e-mail. Hillary would have us believe this was an accident, and she didn't know enough to identify the error at the time. I don't believe her.
Why should I believe her? You say she's not been charged so I should believe her and I call BS. She's been changing her story on this way to much, PLUS what she has admitted to amounts to willful and repeated disregard of her duty to protect classified information. Your mileage may vary, but "It happens all the time" doesn't make a good excuse for Hillary. No it doesn't "happen all the time" w/o repercussion and I seriously hope that if you can simply excuse such behavior, you are not currently holding an active clearance because it's attitudes like that which will continue to cause grave damage to our national security.
Yes, and although I've not actually had one in my hands, I've seen them in use on others and had them used on me (although I don't remember the later).
It's a pretty poor endoscope with a focal length that short and where you could inject this thing, it would be dangerous and pointless without being attached to some kind of fiber that could return the images and remove the camera before it got stuck in a lung or something important. Besides, shove a small camera into a vein and what are you going to see anyway? Um, not much more than the opaque blood that will surround it.
Come to think of it, this development is pretty much worthless beyond being a proof of concept kind of thing. But I guess that's why they are asking for money...
Slashdot Mirror
Then why should we not count them?
EULA .... Gota have them I guess.
I'm surprised that it's not a 45 page legal waver of liability you have to acknowledge every time you hit the button..
If my car is in autopilot, and I take control of the vehicle just before dying in an accident, is it considered an autopilot fatality?
Depends on who's lawyer you ask. You can bet the counsel for the automobile manufacturer is going to blame the dead person....
Hold up your gender card and repeat after me.....
It's not fair for women.... It's not fair for women.... We are the oppressed....
"Female lives matter.... Female lives matter.....
Or, you can just re-run a Hillary campaign stump speech a few times....
Women in general are worse at tech jobs, and therefore, less women want to pursue tech jobs.
MYSTERY SOLVED!
Not so.... This is more about INTEREST than aptitude. Men and Women, in general, have different interests. I may sound sexist to some, but it's obvious to this parent that boys and girls don't just come with different plumbing but are wired differently as well. I've met some excellent programmers in my day, only a few have been women, not because women cannot do the job as well but because few WANTED to do the job in the first place.
Seriously?
I've been at this technical thing for nearly 30 years and I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what you are driving at. What about Asian women bothers you?
Personally, I don't care what gender you are (or think you want to be), what matters to me is how well you can do your job. I've worked with and for both men and women and I don't see any difference that correlates to gender, except for one and that has to do with HR's statistics when they count up how many "F" and "M" boxes get checked (and stupid studies like this one..)
Generally, I don't bother with bullies. Quite frankly, I don't really care what they think or do, so I generally ignore them.
I don't call them idiots, mainly because I don't care if they choose to be one, they don't intimidate me, again because I don't care what they think about me and they rarely bother me given my 6'7" size. If they decided to come after me, it's going to be unprovoked and they will likely have a nasty surprise as I can take care of myself.
I suggest that you might rethink your bravado in cases like this and just keep your mouth shut over calling some idiot what they are. Not because you don't have the right to say what you think, but because it isn't profitable for anybody to air your views and you might save yourself from a beating should they actually best you in the ensuing fight. Some things are just not worth the trouble trying to fix, and idiots are high on that list for me.
The best AI I've seen is stuff that uses techniques which are easy on resources.
The holy grail of AI is something that can run with limited resources and give you reasonably good results and from what I've seen that's not beyond the state of the art today. In fact, I personally think the advancement in AI will only take place once we forget this foolish notion that we can field brut force algorithms for stuff like driving cars where the range of 'acceptable' solutions is pretty wide given a 6 foot wide car going down a 10 foot wide lane. We don't even do that for trains yet, and you don't have to manage the steering wheel, just the throttle and brakes on those things.
Tell me, how do YOU drive a car? Do you have a better than HD set of cameras scanning the area around the car to 1/4" tolerances? Absolutely not. Why do we think we need to brute force this problem in order to do it on a computer? Something tells me we have over engineered this if Intel thinks they will be selling more processing power by being involved.
I get the devil is in the details, but watching my 16 year old learn how to drive does not tell me this is problem takes huge amounts of processing power...
Try it now; they won't miss you and neither will we.
Ouch.. That was harsh... Not that I'm arguing with you...
Freedom of speech means you are free to say what you want but it does not mean freedom from consequences when you speak.
That's complete nonsense.
By that logic, I am free to stab you to death, but I'm not free from the consequences of that action. So does that mean we have Freedom of Murder? Clearly not.
Who's claiming you have a right to kill someone? Not I. You apparently do though.
Speech is a protected action in our constitution, murder is not. Actually, speech is a natural right, one we are born with, which happens to be enshrined in the first amendment to our constitution, murder is Neither a natural born right nor is it protected in our constitution. I know of nobody who advocates that murder is a right of any kind, except perhaps for you and/or a serial killer trying to explain why what he did was not wrong. Are you a serial killer? I didn't think so..
You sir, are trying to muddy the water by throwing out the absurd and offering it as a comparison. Your analogy thus fails.
I think we are saying the same thing. If you read what I wrote and the example I give, it looks very similar to what you say and your example...
One major problem with that analogy. If I call someone an idiot, that should be protected speech. But there are those who would consider that to be continuing the swing of my fist into that person's nose.
It IS protected speech to call somebody an idiot. It may be stupid, and you may be assaulted by the subject of your remarks, but your right to say what you will is intact even if your face isn't.
If your inflammatory speech leads somebody to assault you, they are breaking the law, and where your words may be used as a defense (as in "any reasonable person would have reacted to being called that!") but it is only like to reduce the penalty when they are found guilty. This is most certainly NOT an infringement on your right to speak your mind.
Hey, just let food stamp EBT cards be used for arms and ammo purchases and not just soda and frozen pizza and we are golden eh? While we are at it, might as well let them buy beer, wine and candy...
I'm guessing they WANTED the NRA to take exception in a loud public way... It's all about calling attention to themselves and their cause by being outrageous. It worked and now we have PR gold (for them)..
The problem here is folks generally misunderstand what the 1st amendment actually says and what it means (actually they generally don't understand ANY of the bill of rights correctly.)
Freedom of speech means you are free to say what you want but it does not mean freedom from consequences when you speak. Sure, say what you want to your boss, it's LEGAL (as in NOT criminal), but don't try and make a 1st amendment case when your boss takes exception and fires you.
So, in this case, the government cannot and will not bring criminal charges, but those who hold the trade marks are apparently ready to make a civil case out of this (which, because they hold the trademark/copyrights is within their rights.) 1st amendment says the government cannot make laws limiting your ability to express your views by making specific kinds of speech illegal (i.e. criminal) (and yes I know there are some limits here). The 1st amendment however does not exempt the speaker from the consequences of their speech. So if you liable or defame someone, the government won't stop you but you can be subject to civil law, where the person wronged can seek civil action to deal with your speech.
So "As a principle, we are always willing to buy back a car...[when]... a customer isn't completely happy"
So much for principle if in practice somebody had to sue you to make you do it..
Aside from the possible re-vote... I think we should honor their wishes and just pull the tag unilaterally. If for no other reason than to help scare other possible exit voters into voting to stay..
Hey now, my 50Mbps Verizon (err Frontier) connection is blindingly fast I'll tell you.... All the Speed Tests in the world prove it... But somehow, nothing seems to load faster.
This is business as usual for Amazon...They've been doing this for the Kindle's they sell for ages...
But why lock yourself into a kindle/phone that is locked to Amazon's store? Don't know, other than they are CHEAPER that way... Hmmm... Seems Amazon knows how to make money, maybe this will get them into the phone market too... I know I have TWO of those Kindle things in my house right now. Darn good tablets for the price.
I didn't say it was legally impossible, only that Obama wouldn't do it. There is literally nothing in it for him, less than nothing if you get right down to it.
You should see the modding on that post... I've drawn nearly 20 votes, up and down so far... It has been oscillating between 5 and 4 every few hours for over a day now.
This wasn't accidental mishandling even by Hillary's account.... Remember why she claimed to have done this private server thing? Her story went something like "It was too much trouble to carry multiple devices" so she went out and made it more convenient for herself.
Now, if you really have 20 years experience with classified materials, you should know how to identify this stuff. Apparently, there was readily identifiable as classified information on her unclassified server (i.e. it had the MARKINGS still in place) not to mention over 3,000 E-mail messages which held classified content, some at such a high level they cannot be released even in redacted form. She and her staff where NOT being careful, they where being negligent, repeatedly in placing classified information in their unclassified e-mail. Hillary would have us believe this was an accident, and she didn't know enough to identify the error at the time. I don't believe her.
Why should I believe her? You say she's not been charged so I should believe her and I call BS. She's been changing her story on this way to much, PLUS what she has admitted to amounts to willful and repeated disregard of her duty to protect classified information. Your mileage may vary, but "It happens all the time" doesn't make a good excuse for Hillary. No it doesn't "happen all the time" w/o repercussion and I seriously hope that if you can simply excuse such behavior, you are not currently holding an active clearance because it's attitudes like that which will continue to cause grave damage to our national security.
Yes, and although I've not actually had one in my hands, I've seen them in use on others and had them used on me (although I don't remember the later).
Can't control your grammar.
Apparently your grammar is in need of control as well...LOL..
Please excuse my improper use of "too" where "to" was supposed to be. Now to be moving on to more important things... Where is my fingernail clipper?
It's a pretty poor endoscope with a focal length that short and where you could inject this thing, it would be dangerous and pointless without being attached to some kind of fiber that could return the images and remove the camera before it got stuck in a lung or something important. Besides, shove a small camera into a vein and what are you going to see anyway? Um, not much more than the opaque blood that will surround it.
Come to think of it, this development is pretty much worthless beyond being a proof of concept kind of thing. But I guess that's why they are asking for money...