And here's Obama saying it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (about 1 minute in. But he modifies the line to "going to science the heck out of this").
It's not a trade off of risks. They have to guess what strains are likely to be the virulent ones this season (since they mutate so often). This year they guessed wrong, so only 30% of the strains going around are covered.
That's the usual reason for the flu shot being less effective, but this year it actually turns out that they guessed right on the variant, but the H3N2 vaccine wasn't as effective expected-- the virus cultured for the antigens apparently had slightly mutated from the one in the wild.
Having the flu before, I make a point to get a vaccine every year (normally in September when it first gets out) just so I can avoid as much of the pain and misery of having the flu as I can. If I get it, it may be a few days of misery vs a week.
And if you get Guillain-Barré from the flu vaccine, you will endure that misery for the rest of your life. Fuck that.
I'll point out that Guillain-Barré syndrome is correlated with influenza-like illnesses, so if avoiding Guillain-Barré syndrome is your objective, you should get the flu shot, not avoid it.
I can't figure out the grammar on that sentence either.
However, for comparison, the accident rate on commercial airliners is about one in fifteen million take-offs-- with a measured rate of zero for last year-- so if he's comparing it to the risk in a plane crash, that risk is pretty much negligible.
The flu shot, as it turns out was of low efficacy this year. Having had the flu, however, I will take the minor pain in the arm to reduce my chance of getting it by 10%.
One wonders how secret it can be if there are Getty Images of it.
That photo was taken at a museum. Either that or Russian nuclear production facilities have some very interesting decorative choices.....
CBS news says
(https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/which-countries-have-nukes/3/ ):
"Here, a nuclear museum staffer cleans the first Soviet nuclear bomb, tested in 1949, just in front of the country's first thermonuclear bomb."
CREDIT: Alexander Nemenov/AFP/Getty Images
I would hasten to add that toxic workplace is as most subjective as can be, and that this is *your* opinion.
There are a lot of external references to Uber's toxic workplace. Try google searching Uber+toxic+workplace. A few hits I could dismiss as "a few haters", but I get 443 thousand hits.
Here are some of the top few. It looks pretty toxic to me:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/technology/uber-fired.html
https://www.recode.net/2017/6/21/15844852/uber-toxic-bro-company-culture-susan-fowler-blog-post
https://thinkprogress.org/travis-kalanick-uber-resigns-a8537d468f11/
https://www.recode.net/2017/6/21/15844852/uber-toxic-bro-company-culture-susan-fowler-blog-post
http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-holder-report-results-investigation-harassment-bro-culture-2017-6
http://theconversation.com/fixing-a-toxic-culture-like-ubers-requires-more-than-just-a-new-ceo-79102
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace-culture.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/06/uber-fires-employees-sexual-harassment-investigation
https://qz.com/1010986/a-timeline-of-events-that-led-to-travis-kalanick-stepping-down-as-ceo-of-uber/
... surprise, mining isn't disappearing overnight. It might decrease, but cryptocurrancy is here to stay.
Do we have any reason to think this? Right now, cryptocurrency isn't really currency-- most cryptocurrency use is done an investment, which is to say, a gamble that the price is going up.
Will it ever become a currency (which would require stable value. Rising prices for a currency would be deflation, which is bad for currency.)? The answer to this is very unclear.
"...the dark web's currency of choice, thanks to its decentralized and anonymous structure."
Decentralized, yes, anonymous... not quite so much.
Every single transaction of bitcoin is recorded, and the record stored in the blockchain. It's "anonymous" nature relies on you keeping your bitcoin wallet isolated from your identity. Which may be possible. Or, with enough sorting through transactions and linking transactions to actual individuals, may not be.
+1. This is algorithms and infant ML. I can take my kid and train him to swim and then train him to drive a car and get rudimentary skill in a week in both.
You can only do this after about six years of full-time learning in how to navigate in the real world and how to operate his body. This is the hard part, the part that humans learn in their first six years and AIs don't: dealing with the external world.
Learning to swim and learning to drive a car are easy; machines can do that. Learning to make a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich out of what is in the refrigerator: now that's hard.
When you see people without a ton of money eagerly running up debt to start buying an asset because they think it's going to double in value in a few months, your bubble is about to pop.
It's definitely a bubble... but whether it's "about" to pop is another question. A bubble pops when the supply of gullible people buying into the bubble starts to saturate. And there are probably a lot of gullible people out there who still haven't invested in cryptocurrency.
Or, to misquote John Maynard Keynes about betting against an irrational market, "the market can remain irrational for far longer than you or I can remain solvent."
The technology is interesting and useful, but cryptocurrency value is just due to the Beanie Baby effect.
That sentiment usually comes from those who have little experience in this new technology arena. Understandable, but wrong.
Your argument does not show the statement made is wrong, but addresses a different topic. (Technically, this is an ignoratio elenchi argument.
The original post says that crytocurrency value is due to "Beanie Baby effect". Your reply says that blockchain technology does have a value... but for things other than currency.
But the original post did not say that blockchain has no value. The statement was about cryptocurrency, not blockchain. Not only did you not show that this is wrong, but you even seemed to agree with that statement:
(...I can understand the nay-sayers who believe that Bitcoin may have little intrinsic value, because though it has some small utility I can agree it is not the "store of value" that some want it to be...)
It's not just social aps that make things less productive: it's troubleshooting all the damn software and figuring out workarounds for problems.
Software makes me more productive, sure, but I lose all the time I save in troubleshooting. Right now I'm troubleshooting two things: a printer that is giving me an error message "out of paper" even though the paper tray is full, and a database that I have to use at work that requires two-factor authentication (sending me a code to my device that I have to enter to access the database) in which the code sent doesn't show up.
And changing goddamn passwords. I must spend an hour a week dealing with all the passwords.
Again, you're misunderstanding the nature of burden of proof. For a warrant they don't require proof, and they don't have to present both sides-- that would be for a prosecution, but for a warrant they only have to show that they have some reason for suspicion. The "corroboration" you mention would come (or not come) from the surveillance.
For a search warrant, the judge doesn't evaluate the sources, and most particularly doesn't evaluate the possible motives for the sources-- the judge just verifies that they do have some reason for the warrant, other than whim.
You'd be the first to cry foul if they could do this - because they'd get a warrant to snoop on everyone's internet activity "who might" commit some crime.
Not everybody who "might" commit some crime. Everybody for whom they have reasonable suspicion: that is, a named informer alleging that a crime is being committed, evidence of which would be revealed by surveillance.
That's the way wiretaps work, yes; sorry, but it's the way they work. If they already had the proof, they wouldn't need the wiretap, they'd just arrest them. Wiretaps are for when they don't have proof.
EXCEPT in non-secret (non-kangaro courts) the person under potential investigation can challenge the warrant and submit their evidence against it.
What in the world are you talking about? Warrants for surveillance are always secret; they would be pointless otherwise.
What do you think, the courts go "Dear Mafia Don: we just received a FBI warrant to wiretap your phones. Would you like to challenge this? sincerely, the Department of Justice."
The relevant point is that asking for a warrant for surveillance is not the same as proving guilt. They just need to show that they have some reason to suspect that the surveillance might show evidence of a crime. They don't care about Steele's motivations-- if they go on to prosecute, that might be important, but it's irrelevant to just getting a warrant.
Not really a problem. Whenever I start getting ads for boring stuff, I do a few quick searches for cool stuff to switch the ads over to stuff that's worth looking at. Try "Where can I adopt a kitten" and "I want to buy a lamborghini" and "tour packages to antarctica" for starters.
Pro tip: never search for "I need new underwear" on the web.
Slashdot Mirror
Though, I have no idea why Huawei is targeted.
Because they have been caught installing spyware in the firmware.
http://www.news18.com/news/tech/xiaomi-lenovo-huawei-smartphones-found-pre-installed-with-spyware-1087415.html
Their response was "oh, that wasn't us, it was somebody else."
But why throw away a perfectly good car ? Or was his Telsa broken and beyond repair ?
Well, it was ten years old. He probably wanted an excuse to get a new one.
Yes, atomic clocks (including the ones that support GPS) routinely incorporate the relativistic corrections-- both special and general.
three-second youtube clip
And here's Obama saying it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (about 1 minute in. But he modifies the line to "going to science the heck out of this").
It's not a trade off of risks. They have to guess what strains are likely to be the virulent ones this season (since they mutate so often). This year they guessed wrong, so only 30% of the strains going around are covered.
That's the usual reason for the flu shot being less effective, but this year it actually turns out that they guessed right on the variant, but the H3N2 vaccine wasn't as effective expected-- the virus cultured for the antigens apparently had slightly mutated from the one in the wild.
Having the flu before, I make a point to get a vaccine every year (normally in September when it first gets out) just so I can avoid as much of the pain and misery of having the flu as I can. If I get it, it may be a few days of misery vs a week.
And if you get Guillain-Barré from the flu vaccine, you will endure that misery for the rest of your life. Fuck that.
I'll point out that Guillain-Barré syndrome is correlated with influenza-like illnesses, so if avoiding Guillain-Barré syndrome is your objective, you should get the flu shot, not avoid it.
However, for comparison, the accident rate on commercial airliners is about one in fifteen million take-offs-- with a measured rate of zero for last year-- so if he's comparing it to the risk in a plane crash, that risk is pretty much negligible.
The flu shot, as it turns out was of low efficacy this year. Having had the flu, however, I will take the minor pain in the arm to reduce my chance of getting it by 10%.
One wonders how secret it can be if there are Getty Images of it.
That photo was taken at a museum. Either that or Russian nuclear production facilities have some very interesting decorative choices. ....
CBS news says (https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/which-countries-have-nukes/3/ ):
"Here, a nuclear museum staffer cleans the first Soviet nuclear bomb, tested in 1949, just in front of the country's first thermonuclear bomb."
CREDIT: Alexander Nemenov/AFP/Getty Images
Yep, image is of a museum.
promotes such a toxic workplace...
I would hasten to add that toxic workplace is as most subjective as can be, and that this is *your* opinion.
There are a lot of external references to Uber's toxic workplace. Try google searching Uber+toxic+workplace. A few hits I could dismiss as "a few haters", but I get 443 thousand hits.
Here are some of the top few. It looks pretty toxic to me:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/technology/uber-fired.html
https://www.recode.net/2017/6/21/15844852/uber-toxic-bro-company-culture-susan-fowler-blog-post
https://thinkprogress.org/travis-kalanick-uber-resigns-a8537d468f11/
https://www.recode.net/2017/6/21/15844852/uber-toxic-bro-company-culture-susan-fowler-blog-post
http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-holder-report-results-investigation-harassment-bro-culture-2017-6
http://theconversation.com/fixing-a-toxic-culture-like-ubers-requires-more-than-just-a-new-ceo-79102
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace-culture.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/06/uber-fires-employees-sexual-harassment-investigation
https://qz.com/1010986/a-timeline-of-events-that-led-to-travis-kalanick-stepping-down-as-ceo-of-uber/
... surprise, mining isn't disappearing overnight. It might decrease, but cryptocurrancy is here to stay.
Do we have any reason to think this? Right now, cryptocurrency isn't really currency-- most cryptocurrency use is done an investment, which is to say, a gamble that the price is going up.
Will it ever become a currency (which would require stable value. Rising prices for a currency would be deflation, which is bad for currency.)? The answer to this is very unclear.
Competitive waiting. Coming soon! Little do they know I trained with one of, no, THE absolute best trainer ever : hl2.exe
For hardcore wait training, most professionals are waiting for Half Life 3.
Amateurs. I'm still waiting for my flying car.
"...the dark web's currency of choice, thanks to its decentralized and anonymous structure."
Decentralized, yes, anonymous... not quite so much.
Every single transaction of bitcoin is recorded, and the record stored in the blockchain. It's "anonymous" nature relies on you keeping your bitcoin wallet isolated from your identity. Which may be possible. Or, with enough sorting through transactions and linking transactions to actual individuals, may not be.
+1. This is algorithms and infant ML.
I can take my kid and train him to swim and then train him to drive a car and get rudimentary skill in a week in both.
You can only do this after about six years of full-time learning in how to navigate in the real world and how to operate his body. This is the hard part, the part that humans learn in their first six years and AIs don't: dealing with the external world.
Learning to swim and learning to drive a car are easy; machines can do that. Learning to make a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich out of what is in the refrigerator: now that's hard.
When you see people without a ton of money eagerly running up debt to start buying an asset because they think it's going to double in value in a few months, your bubble is about to pop.
It's definitely a bubble... but whether it's "about" to pop is another question. A bubble pops when the supply of gullible people buying into the bubble starts to saturate. And there are probably a lot of gullible people out there who still haven't invested in cryptocurrency.
Or, to misquote John Maynard Keynes about betting against an irrational market, "the market can remain irrational for far longer than you or I can remain solvent."
The technology is interesting and useful, but cryptocurrency value is just due to the Beanie Baby effect.
That sentiment usually comes from those who have little experience in this new technology arena. Understandable, but wrong.
Your argument does not show the statement made is wrong, but addresses a different topic. (Technically, this is an ignoratio elenchi argument.
The original post says that crytocurrency value is due to "Beanie Baby effect". Your reply says that blockchain technology does have a value... but for things other than currency.
But the original post did not say that blockchain has no value. The statement was about cryptocurrency, not blockchain. Not only did you not show that this is wrong, but you even seemed to agree with that statement:
(...I can understand the nay-sayers who believe that Bitcoin may have little intrinsic value, because though it has some small utility I can agree it is not the "store of value" that some want it to be...)
Software makes me more productive, sure, but I lose all the time I save in troubleshooting. Right now I'm troubleshooting two things: a printer that is giving me an error message "out of paper" even though the paper tray is full, and a database that I have to use at work that requires two-factor authentication (sending me a code to my device that I have to enter to access the database) in which the code sent doesn't show up.
And changing goddamn passwords. I must spend an hour a week dealing with all the passwords.
Too bad. I love that guy. America needs more full-on nuts who do crazy things with rockets and other such toys-- and I mean that sincerely.
For a search warrant, the judge doesn't evaluate the sources, and most particularly doesn't evaluate the possible motives for the sources-- the judge just verifies that they do have some reason for the warrant, other than whim.
You'd be the first to cry foul if they could do this - because they'd get a warrant to snoop on everyone's internet activity "who might" commit some crime.
Not everybody who "might" commit some crime. Everybody for whom they have reasonable suspicion: that is, a named informer alleging that a crime is being committed, evidence of which would be revealed by surveillance.
That's the way wiretaps work, yes; sorry, but it's the way they work. If they already had the proof, they wouldn't need the wiretap, they'd just arrest them. Wiretaps are for when they don't have proof.
EXCEPT in non-secret (non-kangaro courts) the person under potential investigation can challenge the warrant and submit their evidence against it.
What in the world are you talking about? Warrants for surveillance are always secret; they would be pointless otherwise.
What do you think, the courts go "Dear Mafia Don: we just received a FBI warrant to wiretap your phones. Would you like to challenge this? sincerely, the Department of Justice."
No.
The Steele Dossier was an unverified document - that means nothing of any significance can be corroborated -
Right. That's why they needed a warrant: a crime had been alleged, and they were looking into it.
[You refuse to give credit] Because she's a woman. Bow, fuckers.
Well, she's a woman now.
At the time, though, she was Chris Peterson, not Christine.[1] [2]
The Open Group is the holder of the UNIX trade mark. It was established in 1988.
This one? https://blogs.s-osg.org/about/
"The Open Source Group was formed in 2013 to do the following..."
Prove it.
Prove what?
The relevant point is that asking for a warrant for surveillance is not the same as proving guilt. They just need to show that they have some reason to suspect that the surveillance might show evidence of a crime. They don't care about Steele's motivations-- if they go on to prosecute, that might be important, but it's irrelevant to just getting a warrant.
Pro tip: never search for "I need new underwear" on the web.
By then your typical computer will be fully AI and blockchain enabled and will be able to defend itself against virus and malware.
By then, your computer will consider you to be the virus/malware.
And the actual malware will be a self-aware AI.