Little do they realise that while their ZEV doesn't pollute, the power they used to charge their cars came from sources that did. All they did was move the pollution upstream.
Moving the source upstream provides a level of indirection. You're right, pollution is still a problem, but if you've programming experience you know that adding a level of indirection makes a difficult problem a bit more simple.
Once the source is moved, you have the opportunity to modify and improve that source without having to make any further changes to the downstream consumers of that resource.
They've already stated that their next goal is to do it again without the human database, but rather through iteration. And the big final advancement *this time* was made by it playing a ton of games with itself. Studying the human games was not enough to get to this level.
And humans do the same thing. They spend their lives studying the important games that came before. So the point is it did it pretty much the same way humans do. And it has already played a move that no strong human has ever played (Game 2, move 37). At first it (not surprisingly) appeared to be blunder, until its strength became clear. Humans will now learn from the computer and their level of play will rise. It happened in chess and checkers, and in a very big way in backgammon. Any strong human backgammon player today would trounce the World Campion of 20 years ago.
If they were fined billions of dollars the stock would plummet. Not only for the initial cost, but for the exposure to litigation and other liabilities. An $18B fine would bankrupt it. Not that that's going to happen, of course. Some settlement will be reached, perhaps with some "rogue" employee being made a scapegoat. (or an "escape goat," as my niece likes to say)
Stupidest post ever. Of course it's fraud, and of course there's no "poisoned tree". This will just keep getting worse for AM. And you can bet all the other dating sites are now scrambling to cover their own tracks.
It's the not-as-clever-as-you-think-you-are way to solve problems. Think of something "obvious" and then assume the people actually working on it were too stupid to consider it. Job's done.
I think the point is still Google has lost [some of] its relevanc[e].
"Relevancy" is said only by those who don't understand the root word. And not everything is an extreme. One event does not make the point that Google has lost all of its relevance. You do get points for properly spelling its, though.
destined to meet the same ultimate demise for the same reasons. Too expensive, too noisy.
I imagine it will be targeted at high-priced trans-oceanic flights. It doesn't have to reach mach 1 until out over the ocean. I make those trips (at regular speeds of course) all the time, and my recovery time is getting longer and longer as I get older. This will be no doubt out of my price range, but for those who can afford it it's a big gain in productivity.
35 cents times 616,008 restaurants in the USA = $215,602.80
I've heard that song all over the world. Just a few days ago in Thailand. All Thais, singing in English, except for the "Dear <name>" part, where they sang the words Happy Birthday again.
This is one reason I want self-driving cars; it would mean every person in the vehicle could be rear-facing
Every acceleration would "pull" you away from the seat. That would quickly get annoying. In a car at least you're wearing a three-point belt. In the plane they were wearing simple lap belts.
My curiosity is who at NASA is responsible for the insurance not being bought.
Insurance is not magic. As the entity selling the insurance is making a profit, obviously purchasing insurance is a money-losing proposition, so its only function should be to mitigate disaster. Losing $110M is not a disaster, and therefore *not* buying insurance is the more responsible use of the taxpayer money.
Slashdot Mirror
No it isn't and no it doesn't, but don't let facts get in the way of your silly assertions.
No it's not. A brand new Honda City is under 700,000 baht. It's a fine and useful car, and at a 35-1 exchange rate that's less than $20K.
Moving the source upstream provides a level of indirection. You're right, pollution is still a problem, but if you've programming experience you know that adding a level of indirection makes a difficult problem a bit more simple. Once the source is moved, you have the opportunity to modify and improve that source without having to make any further changes to the downstream consumers of that resource.
Until this week you could have made a similar statement about Go.
They've already stated that their next goal is to do it again without the human database, but rather through iteration. And the big final advancement *this time* was made by it playing a ton of games with itself. Studying the human games was not enough to get to this level.
And humans do the same thing. They spend their lives studying the important games that came before. So the point is it did it pretty much the same way humans do. And it has already played a move that no strong human has ever played (Game 2, move 37). At first it (not surprisingly) appeared to be blunder, until its strength became clear. Humans will now learn from the computer and their level of play will rise. It happened in chess and checkers, and in a very big way in backgammon. Any strong human backgammon player today would trounce the World Campion of 20 years ago.
So you're saying if they change the name that will help, but keeping the old name spells doom? Is that rational?
So then it did restore their reputation one iota.
How many laws have you violated today? I doubt that it's zero.
Yeah, you'd think he would have seen that coming.
If they were fined billions of dollars the stock would plummet. Not only for the initial cost, but for the exposure to litigation and other liabilities. An $18B fine would bankrupt it. Not that that's going to happen, of course. Some settlement will be reached, perhaps with some "rogue" employee being made a scapegoat. (or an "escape goat," as my niece likes to say)
Stupidest post ever. Of course it's fraud, and of course there's no "poisoned tree". This will just keep getting worse for AM. And you can bet all the other dating sites are now scrambling to cover their own tracks.
Nobody knows. It just "has" to be that way.
Brought to you by the Department of Making Things Worse.
It's the not-as-clever-as-you-think-you-are way to solve problems. Think of something "obvious" and then assume the people actually working on it were too stupid to consider it. Job's done.
Yes, I was attempting to sarcastically point out that the poster's criticism was based on misunderstanding what he was criticizing.
Look for a spike in broken bones and hip replacement surgery if this becomes popular with the aged.
He didn't even say what his native language is, so we can hardly know if studying it would help his French.
"Relevancy" is said only by those who don't understand the root word. And not everything is an extreme. One event does not make the point that Google has lost all of its relevance. You do get points for properly spelling its, though.
Good point. Simply labeling it "not for public use" is far too civil. What were they thinking?
I imagine it will be targeted at high-priced trans-oceanic flights. It doesn't have to reach mach 1 until out over the ocean. I make those trips (at regular speeds of course) all the time, and my recovery time is getting longer and longer as I get older. This will be no doubt out of my price range, but for those who can afford it it's a big gain in productivity.
I've heard that song all over the world. Just a few days ago in Thailand. All Thais, singing in English, except for the "Dear <name>" part, where they sang the words Happy Birthday again.
Every acceleration would "pull" you away from the seat. That would quickly get annoying. In a car at least you're wearing a three-point belt. In the plane they were wearing simple lap belts.
Insurance is not magic. As the entity selling the insurance is making a profit, obviously purchasing insurance is a money-losing proposition, so its only function should be to mitigate disaster. Losing $110M is not a disaster, and therefore *not* buying insurance is the more responsible use of the taxpayer money.
Apparently a bad UI is what killed John Denver. Does that qualify?
By definition.