No, but most are. And let's say 99.9% are successful, that's 99.9% of the nuclear fuel used in rockets gone from our planet. Even the rockets that fail, probably won't leak radioactive material, and even if they do, it's a relatively small amount that will be potentially returned to where it came from (all over earth, depending on how well it is dispersed).
This rumor comes up every year. There would be no advantage to them releasing an Android device. They wouldn't get any cut of app sales, they can't control Android security (which is an absolute joke), and people still won't buy it because it's a BB.
Do LG and Samsung get a cut of the app sales? No. They seem to be doing just fine compared to Blackberry.
"deep analytics, and new tools developed by our Chinese engineers in our dedicated fraud team to combat against such fraud."
The fraud committed by the chinese shill uber customers and drivers is just a decoy. The real con is by the "chinese engineers" being paid by uber to counter the fraud. They are actually a team of hackers working to steal uber's source code and sell it to a startup chinese version of uber.
It's pretty hard to feel sorry for a tobacco company. It is pretty funny to see a company from an industry considered to be dirty by western standards to be schooled in how to really play dirty by Chinese standards.
Uber is giving out free money to get people to use the service, like an uber crack dealer giving out discounted crack to new chinese users to get them addicted. But rather than using the crack and becoming addicted, the chinese customers are simply reselling the crack for a profit (at the cost of uber).
Even though the homo sapiens species is defined to have roughly diverged from homo neanderthalensis 500000 years ago, it's not like we started from a population of 1 or 2.
The formula you reference assumes a starting point of 1 member 500000 years ago. Obviously this is not accurate.
If we use the exponential growth formula of x0 = x1 * r ** t, it means that If we had 10,000 homo sapiens 500000 years ago, then the original calculated growth rate of 1.00004 is 10000x too large.
I don't know how many humans there were 500000 years ago. This is why I asked for a citation.
The assumptions (e.g. the mathematical model used to calculate exponential growth), and the empirical evidence (e.g. estimates of human populations were at different times in history), are essential to making an informed guess for the average growth rate.
If this is how goombah99 did his "math", than I would say my suspicion that the "math" was done incorrectly is true. It is really easy to make mistakes, and it is important to present your underlying premises so that mistakes can be caught.
My point is that there are *some* extinction circumstances that are not beyond our control. For every other species on earth, *every* extinction circumstance is beyond their control.
It's looking better than it has for any species that has ever existed on earth. Every other species has been completely incapable of collective decision making and *any* long term thinking. It's true that our collective decision making and long term thinking don't always work as well as we might like. But no species has ever been in a position of having enough control to actually prevent extinction, until now.
Imagine having a lottery ticket and watching the first 5 numbers that come up match your ticket. The chances of you winning are still pretty bleak, but if you had to pick a moment when you thought you had the best chance of ever winning the lottery, that would be it.
There is a pretty high chance that we will mess it up and go extinct. There is a better chance that we will make a decision that causes us to survive the next mass extinction event than any other species has ever had (they've all had 0%). The increased risk of causing our own species to go extinct is a small price to pay, given the fact that nearly every species that has ever existed has already gone extinct.
I am assuming there is some empirical evidence that you used to plug into your math formulas, and some assumptions made by the model underpinning those formulas. It is that information that I am requesting a citation for.
Our ability to rationalize our beliefs and behaviors suggests an inner conscience that needs to be convinced.
This dangerous quality of humans is also the *only* thing that could save our species from extinction sources outside our control.
Dinosaurs don't need to rationalize their beliefs that the meteor headed toward them constitutes a real threat, or whether it is just a dinosaur scientist plot to get large sums of grant money.
Nearly every species on planet earth has gone extinct due to circumstances beyond their control. Humans are the first and only species capable of having control over their own existence. We may use this knowledge to shoot ourselves in the foot, but I still think being the only species to ever have a gun is such an amazing advantage, as to warrant the risk of a gun accident.
An individual man can be around an individual women without falling in love with them. I don't think "men" can be around "women" without falling in love with them. For that matter I don't think people can be around other people without occasionally falling in love with them.
I think this should be more offensive to the LGBT community than to women, as it assumes a heterosexual worldview.
I guess he did also suggest women can't be criticized without crying.
I agree that the word nigger has a "non racist use", but the idea that this particular use can only be used by black people is racist.
A white person may want to say nigger to help reclaim the word as something that can be said in a non-racist way, but if that person is not allowed to do this because of the color of his/her skin, that is racist.
I'm not saying you can't get pissed at a white person for saying nigger. It's a free country. All I am saying is that if the *only* reason you have (e.g. not socioeconomic class, culture, or style of dress, or you know the person is racist, etc) for deciding whether saying a word is acceptable or not is based on the skin color of the person saying it, the that's racism.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Either the product is defective, or it's not.
Pretty much every piece of software of a decent size is defective in some way. I don't think the expectation that software be free of defects (i.e. that it is perfect) is a reasonable (or even measurable) expectation.
Even if autonomous vehicles are responsible for 1000 times fewer deaths than human drivers (basically saving 30,000 people every year), does it make sense to hold the vehicle manufacturers responsible for the 33 people killed by autonomous vehicles?
Doing a 1000x better job of driving than humans and essentially freeing our population from one of the leading causes of death, is still not doing the job of driving perfectly (i.e. it still has defects).
Slashdot Mirror
People are also worried about it being storing radioactive material on earth indefinitely.
No, but most are. And let's say 99.9% are successful, that's 99.9% of the nuclear fuel used in rockets gone from our planet. Even the rockets that fail, probably won't leak radioactive material, and even if they do, it's a relatively small amount that will be potentially returned to where it came from (all over earth, depending on how well it is dispersed).
So if the materials are so dangerous, then why is sending them away from earth a bad thing?
All I was asking for was a citation for how this number was arrived at. I wasn't asking for things to be exact.
I am not sure what part of "roughly" you interpreted as "exactly".
This rumor comes up every year. There would be no advantage to them releasing an Android device. They wouldn't get any cut of app sales, they can't control Android security (which is an absolute joke), and people still won't buy it because it's a BB.
Do LG and Samsung get a cut of the app sales? No. They seem to be doing just fine compared to Blackberry.
Unless he has a job and pays taxes...
"deep analytics, and new tools developed by our Chinese engineers in our dedicated fraud team to combat against such fraud."
The fraud committed by the chinese shill uber customers and drivers is just a decoy. The real con is by the "chinese engineers" being paid by uber to counter the fraud. They are actually a team of hackers working to steal uber's source code and sell it to a startup chinese version of uber.
It's pretty hard to feel sorry for a tobacco company. It is pretty funny to see a company from an industry considered to be dirty by western standards to be schooled in how to really play dirty by Chinese standards.
Uber is giving out free money to get people to use the service, like an uber crack dealer giving out discounted crack to new chinese users to get them addicted. But rather than using the crack and becoming addicted, the chinese customers are simply reselling the crack for a profit (at the cost of uber).
Are you so many people?
Even though the homo sapiens species is defined to have roughly diverged from homo neanderthalensis 500000 years ago, it's not like we started from a population of 1 or 2.
The formula you reference assumes a starting point of 1 member 500000 years ago. Obviously this is not accurate.
If we use the exponential growth formula of x0 = x1 * r ** t, it means that If we had 10,000 homo sapiens 500000 years ago, then the original calculated growth rate of 1.00004 is 10000x too large.
I don't know how many humans there were 500000 years ago. This is why I asked for a citation.
The assumptions (e.g. the mathematical model used to calculate exponential growth), and the empirical evidence (e.g. estimates of human populations were at different times in history), are essential to making an informed guess for the average growth rate.
If this is how goombah99 did his "math", than I would say my suspicion that the "math" was done incorrectly is true. It is really easy to make mistakes, and it is important to present your underlying premises so that mistakes can be caught.
My point is that there are *some* extinction circumstances that are not beyond our control. For every other species on earth, *every* extinction circumstance is beyond their control.
Which other species is capable of preventing it's own extinction?
It's looking better than it has for any species that has ever existed on earth. Every other species has been completely incapable of collective decision making and *any* long term thinking. It's true that our collective decision making and long term thinking don't always work as well as we might like. But no species has ever been in a position of having enough control to actually prevent extinction, until now.
Imagine having a lottery ticket and watching the first 5 numbers that come up match your ticket. The chances of you winning are still pretty bleak, but if you had to pick a moment when you thought you had the best chance of ever winning the lottery, that would be it.
There is a pretty high chance that we will mess it up and go extinct. There is a better chance that we will make a decision that causes us to survive the next mass extinction event than any other species has ever had (they've all had 0%). The increased risk of causing our own species to go extinct is a small price to pay, given the fact that nearly every species that has ever existed has already gone extinct.
I am assuming there is some empirical evidence that you used to plug into your math formulas, and some assumptions made by the model underpinning those formulas. It is that information that I am requesting a citation for.
Our ability to rationalize our beliefs and behaviors suggests an inner conscience that needs to be convinced.
This dangerous quality of humans is also the *only* thing that could save our species from extinction sources outside our control.
Dinosaurs don't need to rationalize their beliefs that the meteor headed toward them constitutes a real threat, or whether it is just a dinosaur scientist plot to get large sums of grant money.
Nearly every species on planet earth has gone extinct due to circumstances beyond their control. Humans are the first and only species capable of having control over their own existence. We may use this knowledge to shoot ourselves in the foot, but I still think being the only species to ever have a gun is such an amazing advantage, as to warrant the risk of a gun accident.
Nearly 100% of all lotteries have winners, so if there are lots of lotteries, there are also lots of lottery winners.
Do you have a citation for the claim that human population growth was 1.00004 per year?
An individual man can be around an individual women without falling in love with them. I don't think "men" can be around "women" without falling in love with them. For that matter I don't think people can be around other people without occasionally falling in love with them.
I think this should be more offensive to the LGBT community than to women, as it assumes a heterosexual worldview.
I guess he did also suggest women can't be criticized without crying.
I agree that the word nigger has a "non racist use", but the idea that this particular use can only be used by black people is racist.
A white person may want to say nigger to help reclaim the word as something that can be said in a non-racist way, but if that person is not allowed to do this because of the color of his/her skin, that is racist.
I'm not saying you can't get pissed at a white person for saying nigger. It's a free country. All I am saying is that if the *only* reason you have (e.g. not socioeconomic class, culture, or style of dress, or you know the person is racist, etc) for deciding whether saying a word is acceptable or not is based on the skin color of the person saying it, the that's racism.
I decided that you were trying to use a correlation to prove causation.
How good or bad you are at something is relative.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Either the product is defective, or it's not.
Pretty much every piece of software of a decent size is defective in some way. I don't think the expectation that software be free of defects (i.e. that it is perfect) is a reasonable (or even measurable) expectation.
Even if autonomous vehicles are responsible for 1000 times fewer deaths than human drivers (basically saving 30,000 people every year), does it make sense to hold the vehicle manufacturers responsible for the 33 people killed by autonomous vehicles?
Doing a 1000x better job of driving than humans and essentially freeing our population from one of the leading causes of death, is still not doing the job of driving perfectly (i.e. it still has defects).
I didn't make claims to either, I merely made an observation.
What significance would you like a reader to infer from your observation?