I wonder what percent of registered voters know enough about the agreement to make an informed decision one way or the other. Probably pretty low. Most voters can't even find their home state on a globe.
Agreed, but 70% is already pretty high. More education would certainly push it higher but it's clear support is already high enough our leaders should be continuing support for the Paris Climate Agreement.
Everybody alive since WW2 has nothing to feel proud of except for some scientists and nerds. [...] America's only unique export is it's culture.
You touch on the two aspects of my country I am most proud of. Our Universities and economy put us on the front line of the Digital Revolution and still have us leading the transformation to the Information Age. I am also proud of the more liberal parts of our culture, which is the part we export the rest of the world. Our more conservative / century behind culture is almost unanimously rejected by the rest of the world, although Brexit and the closeness of the French election show not everything about our conservative culture is unique to the U.S. Let's hope that doesn't spread.
There are certainly many aspects of my country I am ashamed of, but that is probably true of every educated citizen of every country.
Trump might get that trade war after all as Europe and other like-minded trading blocs impose import tariffs.
I certainly hope Europe is able to take the mantle of leader of the free world while the US gets its act back together. I am a proud American, but I'm a human first. My country is the second largest polluter in the world, and the largest per capita. I hope more sensible countries around the world band together to show the more ignorant members of my country we cannot get away with it forever. Tariffs or sanctions against the U.S. for its inaction would be a good start.
The Democrats had the White House, the House of Representatives, and a filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate.
Obamacare's failures are entirely on Democrats.
That is not true. Ted Kennedy's death and following special election win by a Republican ended the filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate before a revised bill could be voted on. This left only an early draft to be voted on, with many flaws but a Republican party who was more interested in creating a Democrat failure than in improving health care. Considering the imperfect Obamacare Bill had many significant improvements (as evidenced by how hard it has been to get enough Republican support to repeal it in its entirety) it was a much better outcome to pass it in its imperfect form than to let it die.
The next decade was one of unprecedented obstructionism which led to many failures in the health care industry. Blame for that can certainly be shared by both parties, but one one party was not interesting in improving things. Now that this party is in power they still have to intention to improve the health care system; just to protect their votes.
The Democrats were willing to lose their majority to help the American people. Current Republicans can make no such claim.
Here, folks, you can see displayed the close-minded, arrogant viciousness of the standard Leftist.
While I agree TimothyHollins used unnecessarily inflammatory language in his comment, the content of his post was dead on about the difference between attacking policies and attacking incorrect beliefs behind those policies. Attacking incorrect beliefs does not make you close minded.
What most people (on both the left and right) see others with stupid beliefs they assume the holders of those beliefs are also stupid, and that is often not the case. Not every climate change or evolution denier is stupid, even though the beliefs themselves are stupid. Confirmation bias is incredibly strong, and smart people are not immune. The political right may have their climate change deniers and intelligent design promoters, but the political left has their own GMO science deniers and organic food promoters. And while I believe the political left's fringe beliefs are at least more grounded in reality than those on the political right, it is asinine to believe one side of the political spectrum has every irrational belief.
If incoming missiles are set to detonate up succesfully being targeted than the resulting EMP will still damage the targeted country and likely knock out defence system long enough for following missiles to be effective.
The idea is to take down the missile thousands of miles from the US border, so the EMP will not affect its target.
The problem with nuclear weapons blow the up and they release a lot of highly radioactive material, so you win very little
No, you win quite a lot. There are examples of the non-nuclear explosives in a nuclear weapon detonating in an uncontrolled manner, and the nuclear fallout is many orders of magnitude less than a proper nuclear detonation.
Detonate in space and over the years you rain down radioactive material across the whole planet
The US tested detonation of nuclear weapons in space and while it did rain down radioactive material across the planet, it wasn't at dangerous levels. And that was from full nuclear detonation, not intercepting them in space. You are being quite alarmist.
The only way to win nuclear way is not to play the game and fuck the corporate dick heads who keep trying to push the game to feed their bonuses.
The sad reality is it is unlikely the human species will go the next few hundred years without a nuclear war. Or at least a "minor" nuclear skirmish with a rogue or marginalized state (like North Korea). It was also unlikely for us to get through the last 100 years without one, and we came close more than once, but we got lucky. It is important that we prepare for nuclear war and try to minimize its negative effects even as we try to ensure a nuclear war never happens.
For real, NK just needs to build a dozen or so nukes and send em our way.
By this article, at least half would be successful
This article doesn't give anything close to enough information to know how accurate this system is in 2017. This is the only test to shoot down an ICBM, and we haven't tested against shorter ranged missiles since 2008 (according to TFA). They were certainly not very reliable from 1999-2008, but they may be far more accurate now. Obviously only one test is not enough data points to determine an overall success rate.
And just as NK could launch multiple nukes, the US could launch multiple interceptor missiles. If our missile are only 50% successful, but we launch 10x as many missiles as they do, the US could arguably be 99.9% successful in knocking them down. Although the success of each individual interceptor is unlikely to be completely independent of each other missile, so the actual success rate of interception would be lower. Still probably very high though if we can launch an order of magnitude more missiles than NK can, which is probably reasonable to assume.
Even if the government took 100% of the wealth of the top 5% it still would be a drop in the bucket. By ny calculations to supply ~320M people $10K/year would cost $3,200,000,000,000 or $3.2 *trillion* dollars...every....single...year!
You make it sound like that $3 trillion would just vanish into this air. The money is simply redistributed, not evaporated. If you give a man $20 and he buys a nice dinner with it, that money goes back into the economy. Likely less than a dollar of it is literally "wasted" in his next bathroom visit.
The top 5% of households in the US capture half of the country's wealth, or about $55 trillion in wealth. That is plenty to fund $3 trillion per year in extra income redistribution, although a better scenario would probably include around half of the burden falling on the next 15% as well. The top 20% currently have captured over 85% of the country's wealth, so they would likely capture nearly all of the profit from this redistributed money as well.
Of course there is some "waste" in ensuring every US citizen has a good life, it would not be very hard to accomplish if our electorate had any desire for such an equitable country. Sadly the "I got mine" mentality combined with a distaste for allowing anyone to be a freeloader make this kind of change unlikely in the short term.
Pay can differ based on performance and qualifications.
The difficulty many people are having with this topic is even many of the people claiming there is systematic bias give different criteria for how pay can differ. Most are saying only performance, but here you add qualifications. The question on the minds of those who question this bias is how employee retention and acquisition strategies can legally impact salary.
Sometimes it takes more money to keep certain employees. This could be to encourage them to relocate, work on less desirable projects, or whatever reason. Paying these employees extra has little if nothing to do with performance and qualifications, but many of these reasons would still seems to be a very fair and rational. Unfortunately they nearly all depend on negotiation with individual employees, and if one gender tends to do better in these negotiations a wage gap will appear.
Many people on this thread have a problem with not allowing companies to pay employees what is required to attain or retain them. They also have a problem forcing companies to pay more than is required to attain or retain employees. Unfortunately at least one of these would probably be necessary to remove the type of systematic gender bias you are talking about.
I would avoid jumping onto the conclusions that Conservatives are less educated than Liberals.
In all fairness he never said that. He made a distinction between the rationalizations used by educated conservatives vs uneducated ones. No opinion regarding the relative education between liberals and conservatives were mentioned. If anything his entire comment was an acknowledgement that climate science denial is not just a problem among the uneducated.
This idea of autonomous cars being a simple call away within 10 minutes is something only available in a city which does have buses. It will not be available to those who do not live in cities unless you are willing to pay hundreds of dollars and willing to wait for hours.
It may not be available to people whose closest neighbors tend to be a quarter mile away (like the farm I grew up in), but in the suburbs it is quite feasible. The nearest small town to my father's farm was about 10 square miles with 12,000 people. An unused autonomous car on the other side of town could be at your house in 10 minutes.
The total number of cars necessary will be determined by rush hour needs. This will provide more than enough available cars for any unplanned trips throughout the day, regardless of how populated the area is.
And I wouldn't personally like to wait 10 minutes for a ride. For me the thing about owning is that you can walk out to your driveway without waiting.
You personally don't have to wait 10 minutes for a ride, since I doubt you will be forced to forego having a car. I on the other hand doubt there is a single time I just needed to rush out of the house with no notice in the last year. Even when my daughter broke her leg it took us time to get diaper bags and other incidentals for both of our kids ready, and if this really became commonplace there would probably be some kind of 911 service with 5x the cost but will be there immediately.
If I wanted to wait, have a cheap ride, and not have to drive, then I would be taking a bus already.
Most people don't even have the option of a bus, since they don't live in urban areas. And for those where a bus is an option, I doubt they can hail a bus and pick them up at their house. It really isn't much of a comparison.
Whatever gets me closer to a car that materializes in my driveway as soon as I open my front door, which will be tailored to meet all my requirements for a vehicle and take me everywhere I want to go for a $1.
Other than the ridiculous price point, nothing you asked for is very far fetched once autonomous cars become a thing. Give the car service 10 minutes to find a car with the prerequisite number of seats / child seats and one is waiting for you when you open your front door. Transform the glove box to a safety deposit box stored at a depot in your neighborhood with personal effects like sun glasses and you car is always equipped and ready to go.
$1 is certainly just hyperbole, but at somewhere between $10-$20 for a standard round trip it becomes economically viable to use this type of service instead of owning a car.
I think this is a very good example of the Left co-opting "science" for its own agenda.
No, this is a good example of the fact there are crackpots on both sides of the aisle. There is no conspiracy by the Left to co-opt science. There are only people who wish to make it appear this way so they have an excuse to ignore scientific results.
I'd appreciate not spending a couple hundred dollars extra a year to having a less sluggish ride. Then leveraging those savings on a faster CPU/GPU.
You could buy a new GTX 1080 every month for the cost of a new Odyssey car payment. High end computer gaming is one of the cheapest hobbies around. Even many adult gamers don't realize that since they remember how expensive everything was when they were working at McDonalds in high school.
I never understood this fascination with having stuff you can't use to its fullest extent.
The Challenger SRT Demon is certainly an example of a car you would never enjoy to its fullest extent outside of a dedicated track, but most of the horsepower improvement causing increased fleet performance metrics are able to be fully utilized. There is a significant difference between the daily performance of a car with a 7s 0-60 vs an 8s 0-60. For people who enjoy driving instead of just getting to their destination, this increase in performance is generally fully appreciated.
Considering I'm about to buy my first minivan later this year, I'm even happy the new Odyssey is jumping to 280 hp from 248 (along with shedding weight). While still outperformed by my sedan, I'll appreciate not having too sluggish of a ride when hauling the full family.
Essentially you can either use the same improvements to make the cars more efficient in terms of gas usage or you can make them have more total horsepower. Unfortunately, many of the people buying cars prefer the second, so this is what we end up with.
Considering cars are also getting more efficient in terms of gas usage, it looks like car buyers are choosing a little bit of both. Moderation is usually the key to realistic change, whether it is when dieting and exercising or improving fleet performance and fuel efficiency.
He certainly did mess up the math, but then again so did you. Nearly all of the studies and surveys listed in the Wiki page posted above put the total percentage of non-heterosexual at around 5%. Even the Gallup poll you linked to put the number at 3.8%, and their methodology didn't include anyone who refused to answer the question (4.4% in 2012).
There are many methodologies for trying to estimate an accurate size of the LGBT community, but all of them at least agree the number is around 5%.
This TV show has only one gay person, putting it at around 5.6%. Since the only possibilities are 0%, 5.6%, 11.1%... 5.6% was clearly the closest figure. Even if the real number was only 3.8%, with 18 crew members there would be a 50% chance of zero LGBT crew members, 35% chance of one, 12% chance of two, and so on. There is certainly nothing odd about a show with at least one LGBT cast member if probably around half of all shows should have at least one LGBT cast member. And probably around a quarter of them should have at least two (at least ones with a dozen+ cast members).
Then you're an idiot. What makes you think it's going to pop right now or even any time in the next 10 years?
How can you possibly say he is an idiot without knowing any details about his ESPP? If for instance he bought $1000 in stock which had an immediate value of $1100 because the stock went up during the purchase period, then he is only going to be taxed on the $100 in gains. Lets assume the 28% tax bracket, so he pays $28 in taxes instead of $15. It would only take 1.2% drop in stock value to wipe out the savings from waiting until his gains are considered long term capital gains.
Obviously I just made those numbers up, but they illustrate that if you think your company's stock is overvalued it is certainly not stupid to sell it even as a short term capital gain. It might not be the right move, but it is hardly stupid.
Throwing a frequently asked questions list at students is the best way to kill all interest....
This probably highlights one difference in how you and I see what is possible. I also don't think this would be successful if our solutions tend to rely on what has been done in the decades before NLP and other machine learning enhanced fields have given us better options. I never considered students being given a long FAQ for each lesson. Add another 5 years of research and how good do you think NLP driven Q&A bots will be at servicing students with answers to frequent questions? I think they will be very good, and could achieve a very high question deflection rate. And every deflected question is one less that needs to be serviced by a human teacher. You probably think AI won't be very good at that in the near future, so I think we can just leave that to a difference in opinion. I certainly cannot prove I'm right.
There's no money in maintenance, so unless there's a competitor right on their heels (and unless switching programs is trivial), there's no real incentive to improve the content once it has been created. Profit motive almost invariably is the death of education support materials.
This is why I think there needs to be significant involvement from the public sector in developing these programs. I would prefer a publicly operated or at least heavily regulated repository of lessons where the creators themselves own the content and can perform updates. The profit motive could be as basic as a pay per view. Independent private companies could provide software to access this content but should never be given control over it. This would just cause walled gardens which rarely if ever benefit the consumer.
My dreams for the industry are certainly lofty, but I believe every great advancement over the past few hundred years would have been considered lofty even a decade before it became a reality.
At that point, you have to have an actual teacher in the room anyway, rather than just a babysitter, so what's the point of not letting that person teach?
Primarily so most instruction is being done by the best of the best in the industry, not just who the school could hire locally. Similarly everyone could choose to spend money watching local basketball games played by the best players in their neighborhood, but most would rather watch NBA players even if it has to be watched over TV. It's not a perfect analogy, but ultimately most of the major efficiencies gained from recent technology come from expanding the influence of the best of the best in any given field.
They had their chance in the 90's to play nice but they decided to be assholes for 20 years, and now everyone hates them. There's no coming back from that, ever.
Microsoft is the largest software company in the world. It takes adding the market cap of the #2 through #7 largest software companies to match Microsoft (as of May 2016). They are smaller than the largest computer hardware company (Apple) and the largest computer services company (Alphabet) but they are certainly at the same order of magnitude of these companies.
Being the third largest company by market cap in the world is not something you have to come back from.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what percent of registered voters know enough about the agreement to make an informed decision one way or the other. Probably pretty low. Most voters can't even find their home state on a globe.
Agreed, but 70% is already pretty high. More education would certainly push it higher but it's clear support is already high enough our leaders should be continuing support for the Paris Climate Agreement.
Everybody alive since WW2 has nothing to feel proud of except for some scientists and nerds. [...] America's only unique export is it's culture.
You touch on the two aspects of my country I am most proud of. Our Universities and economy put us on the front line of the Digital Revolution and still have us leading the transformation to the Information Age. I am also proud of the more liberal parts of our culture, which is the part we export the rest of the world. Our more conservative / century behind culture is almost unanimously rejected by the rest of the world, although Brexit and the closeness of the French election show not everything about our conservative culture is unique to the U.S. Let's hope that doesn't spread.
There are certainly many aspects of my country I am ashamed of, but that is probably true of every educated citizen of every country.
Trump might get that trade war after all as Europe and other like-minded trading blocs impose import tariffs.
I certainly hope Europe is able to take the mantle of leader of the free world while the US gets its act back together. I am a proud American, but I'm a human first. My country is the second largest polluter in the world, and the largest per capita. I hope more sensible countries around the world band together to show the more ignorant members of my country we cannot get away with it forever. Tariffs or sanctions against the U.S. for its inaction would be a good start.
Show any data demonstrating that Independents are one way or the other on climate change.
Nearly 70% of registered voters believe the US should participate in the Paris Climate Agreement
While only 53% of Independents believe the Earth is getting warmer primarily because of human activity, they overwhelmingly believe we should at least be working with other world leaders to do what we can about climate change.
The Democrats had the White House, the House of Representatives, and a filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate.
Obamacare's failures are entirely on Democrats.
That is not true. Ted Kennedy's death and following special election win by a Republican ended the filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate before a revised bill could be voted on. This left only an early draft to be voted on, with many flaws but a Republican party who was more interested in creating a Democrat failure than in improving health care. Considering the imperfect Obamacare Bill had many significant improvements (as evidenced by how hard it has been to get enough Republican support to repeal it in its entirety) it was a much better outcome to pass it in its imperfect form than to let it die.
The next decade was one of unprecedented obstructionism which led to many failures in the health care industry. Blame for that can certainly be shared by both parties, but one one party was not interesting in improving things. Now that this party is in power they still have to intention to improve the health care system; just to protect their votes.
The Democrats were willing to lose their majority to help the American people. Current Republicans can make no such claim.
Fact isn't a policy you neanderthal. ...
Here, folks, you can see displayed the close-minded, arrogant viciousness of the standard Leftist.
While I agree TimothyHollins used unnecessarily inflammatory language in his comment, the content of his post was dead on about the difference between attacking policies and attacking incorrect beliefs behind those policies. Attacking incorrect beliefs does not make you close minded.
What most people (on both the left and right) see others with stupid beliefs they assume the holders of those beliefs are also stupid, and that is often not the case. Not every climate change or evolution denier is stupid, even though the beliefs themselves are stupid. Confirmation bias is incredibly strong, and smart people are not immune. The political right may have their climate change deniers and intelligent design promoters, but the political left has their own GMO science deniers and organic food promoters. And while I believe the political left's fringe beliefs are at least more grounded in reality than those on the political right, it is asinine to believe one side of the political spectrum has every irrational belief.
If incoming missiles are set to detonate up succesfully being targeted than the resulting EMP will still damage the targeted country and likely knock out defence system long enough for following missiles to be effective.
The idea is to take down the missile thousands of miles from the US border, so the EMP will not affect its target.
The problem with nuclear weapons blow the up and they release a lot of highly radioactive material, so you win very little
No, you win quite a lot. There are examples of the non-nuclear explosives in a nuclear weapon detonating in an uncontrolled manner, and the nuclear fallout is many orders of magnitude less than a proper nuclear detonation.
Detonate in space and over the years you rain down radioactive material across the whole planet
The US tested detonation of nuclear weapons in space and while it did rain down radioactive material across the planet, it wasn't at dangerous levels. And that was from full nuclear detonation, not intercepting them in space. You are being quite alarmist.
The only way to win nuclear way is not to play the game and fuck the corporate dick heads who keep trying to push the game to feed their bonuses.
The sad reality is it is unlikely the human species will go the next few hundred years without a nuclear war. Or at least a "minor" nuclear skirmish with a rogue or marginalized state (like North Korea). It was also unlikely for us to get through the last 100 years without one, and we came close more than once, but we got lucky. It is important that we prepare for nuclear war and try to minimize its negative effects even as we try to ensure a nuclear war never happens.
For real, NK just needs to build a dozen or so nukes and send em our way.
By this article, at least half would be successful
This article doesn't give anything close to enough information to know how accurate this system is in 2017. This is the only test to shoot down an ICBM, and we haven't tested against shorter ranged missiles since 2008 (according to TFA). They were certainly not very reliable from 1999-2008, but they may be far more accurate now. Obviously only one test is not enough data points to determine an overall success rate.
And just as NK could launch multiple nukes, the US could launch multiple interceptor missiles. If our missile are only 50% successful, but we launch 10x as many missiles as they do, the US could arguably be 99.9% successful in knocking them down. Although the success of each individual interceptor is unlikely to be completely independent of each other missile, so the actual success rate of interception would be lower. Still probably very high though if we can launch an order of magnitude more missiles than NK can, which is probably reasonable to assume.
Even if the government took 100% of the wealth of the top 5% it still would be a drop in the bucket. By ny calculations to supply ~320M people $10K/year would cost $3,200,000,000,000 or $3.2 *trillion* dollars...every....single...year!
You make it sound like that $3 trillion would just vanish into this air. The money is simply redistributed, not evaporated. If you give a man $20 and he buys a nice dinner with it, that money goes back into the economy. Likely less than a dollar of it is literally "wasted" in his next bathroom visit.
The top 5% of households in the US capture half of the country's wealth, or about $55 trillion in wealth. That is plenty to fund $3 trillion per year in extra income redistribution, although a better scenario would probably include around half of the burden falling on the next 15% as well. The top 20% currently have captured over 85% of the country's wealth, so they would likely capture nearly all of the profit from this redistributed money as well.
Of course there is some "waste" in ensuring every US citizen has a good life, it would not be very hard to accomplish if our electorate had any desire for such an equitable country. Sadly the "I got mine" mentality combined with a distaste for allowing anyone to be a freeloader make this kind of change unlikely in the short term.
Pay can differ based on performance and qualifications.
The difficulty many people are having with this topic is even many of the people claiming there is systematic bias give different criteria for how pay can differ. Most are saying only performance, but here you add qualifications. The question on the minds of those who question this bias is how employee retention and acquisition strategies can legally impact salary.
Sometimes it takes more money to keep certain employees. This could be to encourage them to relocate, work on less desirable projects, or whatever reason. Paying these employees extra has little if nothing to do with performance and qualifications, but many of these reasons would still seems to be a very fair and rational. Unfortunately they nearly all depend on negotiation with individual employees, and if one gender tends to do better in these negotiations a wage gap will appear.
Many people on this thread have a problem with not allowing companies to pay employees what is required to attain or retain them. They also have a problem forcing companies to pay more than is required to attain or retain employees. Unfortunately at least one of these would probably be necessary to remove the type of systematic gender bias you are talking about.
What this article also missed is that nearly 60% of all Americans don't have enough savings to cover a $500 - $1000 unplanned expense. This article is trying to make this a Millennial problem, but in truth it is just a reality of the majority of all US households.
I would avoid jumping onto the conclusions that Conservatives are less educated than Liberals.
In all fairness he never said that. He made a distinction between the rationalizations used by educated conservatives vs uneducated ones. No opinion regarding the relative education between liberals and conservatives were mentioned. If anything his entire comment was an acknowledgement that climate science denial is not just a problem among the uneducated.
I pay my doctor not the AI. I will hold my doctor responsible not the AI.
And ultimately some insurance company pays you regardless of who is at fault.
This idea of autonomous cars being a simple call away within 10 minutes is something only available in a city which does have buses. It will not be available to those who do not live in cities unless you are willing to pay hundreds of dollars and willing to wait for hours.
It may not be available to people whose closest neighbors tend to be a quarter mile away (like the farm I grew up in), but in the suburbs it is quite feasible. The nearest small town to my father's farm was about 10 square miles with 12,000 people. An unused autonomous car on the other side of town could be at your house in 10 minutes.
The total number of cars necessary will be determined by rush hour needs. This will provide more than enough available cars for any unplanned trips throughout the day, regardless of how populated the area is.
And I wouldn't personally like to wait 10 minutes for a ride. For me the thing about owning is that you can walk out to your driveway without waiting.
You personally don't have to wait 10 minutes for a ride, since I doubt you will be forced to forego having a car. I on the other hand doubt there is a single time I just needed to rush out of the house with no notice in the last year. Even when my daughter broke her leg it took us time to get diaper bags and other incidentals for both of our kids ready, and if this really became commonplace there would probably be some kind of 911 service with 5x the cost but will be there immediately.
If I wanted to wait, have a cheap ride, and not have to drive, then I would be taking a bus already.
Most people don't even have the option of a bus, since they don't live in urban areas. And for those where a bus is an option, I doubt they can hail a bus and pick them up at their house. It really isn't much of a comparison.
Whatever gets me closer to a car that materializes in my driveway as soon as I open my front door, which will be tailored to meet all my requirements for a vehicle and take me everywhere I want to go for a $1.
Other than the ridiculous price point, nothing you asked for is very far fetched once autonomous cars become a thing. Give the car service 10 minutes to find a car with the prerequisite number of seats / child seats and one is waiting for you when you open your front door. Transform the glove box to a safety deposit box stored at a depot in your neighborhood with personal effects like sun glasses and you car is always equipped and ready to go.
$1 is certainly just hyperbole, but at somewhere between $10-$20 for a standard round trip it becomes economically viable to use this type of service instead of owning a car.
Did you not read the list of supposed "scientific" issues?
Yes, which is why this woman is an example of a crackpot with liberal leanings. Like I said, they are on both sides of the aisle.
I think this is a very good example of the Left co-opting "science" for its own agenda.
No, this is a good example of the fact there are crackpots on both sides of the aisle. There is no conspiracy by the Left to co-opt science. There are only people who wish to make it appear this way so they have an excuse to ignore scientific results.
I'd appreciate not spending a couple hundred dollars extra a year to having a less sluggish ride. Then leveraging those savings on a faster CPU/GPU.
You could buy a new GTX 1080 every month for the cost of a new Odyssey car payment. High end computer gaming is one of the cheapest hobbies around. Even many adult gamers don't realize that since they remember how expensive everything was when they were working at McDonalds in high school.
I never understood this fascination with having stuff you can't use to its fullest extent.
The Challenger SRT Demon is certainly an example of a car you would never enjoy to its fullest extent outside of a dedicated track, but most of the horsepower improvement causing increased fleet performance metrics are able to be fully utilized. There is a significant difference between the daily performance of a car with a 7s 0-60 vs an 8s 0-60. For people who enjoy driving instead of just getting to their destination, this increase in performance is generally fully appreciated.
Considering I'm about to buy my first minivan later this year, I'm even happy the new Odyssey is jumping to 280 hp from 248 (along with shedding weight). While still outperformed by my sedan, I'll appreciate not having too sluggish of a ride when hauling the full family.
Essentially you can either use the same improvements to make the cars more efficient in terms of gas usage or you can make them have more total horsepower. Unfortunately, many of the people buying cars prefer the second, so this is what we end up with.
Considering cars are also getting more efficient in terms of gas usage, it looks like car buyers are choosing a little bit of both. Moderation is usually the key to realistic change, whether it is when dieting and exercising or improving fleet performance and fuel efficiency.
He certainly did mess up the math, but then again so did you. Nearly all of the studies and surveys listed in the Wiki page posted above put the total percentage of non-heterosexual at around 5%. Even the Gallup poll you linked to put the number at 3.8%, and their methodology didn't include anyone who refused to answer the question (4.4% in 2012).
There are many methodologies for trying to estimate an accurate size of the LGBT community, but all of them at least agree the number is around 5%.
This TV show has only one gay person, putting it at around 5.6%. Since the only possibilities are 0%, 5.6%, 11.1% ... 5.6% was clearly the closest figure. Even if the real number was only 3.8%, with 18 crew members there would be a 50% chance of zero LGBT crew members, 35% chance of one, 12% chance of two, and so on. There is certainly nothing odd about a show with at least one LGBT cast member if probably around half of all shows should have at least one LGBT cast member. And probably around a quarter of them should have at least two (at least ones with a dozen+ cast members).
Then you're an idiot. What makes you think it's going to pop right now or even any time in the next 10 years?
How can you possibly say he is an idiot without knowing any details about his ESPP? If for instance he bought $1000 in stock which had an immediate value of $1100 because the stock went up during the purchase period, then he is only going to be taxed on the $100 in gains. Lets assume the 28% tax bracket, so he pays $28 in taxes instead of $15. It would only take 1.2% drop in stock value to wipe out the savings from waiting until his gains are considered long term capital gains.
Obviously I just made those numbers up, but they illustrate that if you think your company's stock is overvalued it is certainly not stupid to sell it even as a short term capital gain. It might not be the right move, but it is hardly stupid.
Throwing a frequently asked questions list at students is the best way to kill all interest....
This probably highlights one difference in how you and I see what is possible. I also don't think this would be successful if our solutions tend to rely on what has been done in the decades before NLP and other machine learning enhanced fields have given us better options. I never considered students being given a long FAQ for each lesson. Add another 5 years of research and how good do you think NLP driven Q&A bots will be at servicing students with answers to frequent questions? I think they will be very good, and could achieve a very high question deflection rate. And every deflected question is one less that needs to be serviced by a human teacher. You probably think AI won't be very good at that in the near future, so I think we can just leave that to a difference in opinion. I certainly cannot prove I'm right.
There's no money in maintenance, so unless there's a competitor right on their heels (and unless switching programs is trivial), there's no real incentive to improve the content once it has been created. Profit motive almost invariably is the death of education support materials.
This is why I think there needs to be significant involvement from the public sector in developing these programs. I would prefer a publicly operated or at least heavily regulated repository of lessons where the creators themselves own the content and can perform updates. The profit motive could be as basic as a pay per view. Independent private companies could provide software to access this content but should never be given control over it. This would just cause walled gardens which rarely if ever benefit the consumer.
My dreams for the industry are certainly lofty, but I believe every great advancement over the past few hundred years would have been considered lofty even a decade before it became a reality.
At that point, you have to have an actual teacher in the room anyway, rather than just a babysitter, so what's the point of not letting that person teach?
Primarily so most instruction is being done by the best of the best in the industry, not just who the school could hire locally. Similarly everyone could choose to spend money watching local basketball games played by the best players in their neighborhood, but most would rather watch NBA players even if it has to be watched over TV. It's not a perfect analogy, but ultimately most of the major efficiencies gained from recent technology come from expanding the influence of the best of the best in any given field.
They had their chance in the 90's to play nice but they decided to be assholes for 20 years, and now everyone hates them. There's no coming back from that, ever.
Microsoft is the largest software company in the world. It takes adding the market cap of the #2 through #7 largest software companies to match Microsoft (as of May 2016). They are smaller than the largest computer hardware company (Apple) and the largest computer services company (Alphabet) but they are certainly at the same order of magnitude of these companies.
Being the third largest company by market cap in the world is not something you have to come back from.