Oh good grief we're back to this...
It's not up to the non-believer to prove the lack of existence of God.
Otherwise they'd have to prove the lack of existence of every god which could be conceived.
That's why it's up to the believer to prove the existence of their god.
To not follow the precepts of the religion would be tantamount to suicide as their imaginary sense of being would be in an imaginary sense of peril.
Fixed that for you.
The problem isn't the state doing this tracking - it's private corporations.
Gas stations in the UK perform number plate recognition in order to avoid "drive-offs." But if you're then using your store loyalty card with your gas purchase then they've tied your number plate to your purchase history/patterns. On top of that the store can easily access the DVLA records [dailymail.co.uk].
In the UK we also have a system called TrafficMaster [trafficmaster.co.uk] which analyses traffic flow for their satnav services. There is, however, nothing to prevent them working with the stores to cross-reference number-plates against traffic flow. So now the store can find out exactly where you're driving as well.
That kind of information is something I never signed up for & one of the reasons I'll never have a store loyalty card.
Watson is given the "answer" (remember it's Jeopardy) as textual input at the same time as it is read to the other contestants. It then figures out all the likely questions along with the likelihood of each of them being right. Only once it's figured out which answer it's actually going to answer will it buzz in.
It won't use the additional time which a human has after they've buzzed to continue to think about the problem - unlike the human competitors.
The thing about Jennings is that in the end he just buzzed for everything because he was so confident he knew he could figure it out during the thinking time. Consequently if Watson is to win it's got to come up with the right answer in the time it takes for the question to be read and the reaction time the other competitors will take to buzz. This'll come out at ~ 3 seconds.
When you think about the problem like that, all of the crap people are spouting about "it gets the question as text rather than _hearing_ it" and "it's got a huge database to search" becomes moot since it's got to so much to do in just 3 seconds!
They aren't childrens books at all.
- They don't have any sex.
- They don't have any violence (well not gruesome violence anyway).
- They don't have any swearing.
Does that define them as children's books? Or are they just really good, timeless stories which appeal to all ages and don't need any of the Hollywood glorification which you get in typical "airport" novels.
This same argument is rolled out every time a graphic novel wins a hugo or a nebula award - "that's not a real book."
Come on - get a grip! They are great books which attract people back to reading - is that really all that bad?
Because there's no other way to carry out the experiments.
There really is a lot of stuff about a nuclear explosion which doesn't just apply to the weapons industry.
An article wouldn't get a great deal of readers if it were written about a new computer designed to simulate the action of subatomic particles in a star. If the press release says "NUCLEAR WEAPONS" all over it then people read it & post it to their news sites.
Aren't mobile phones meant to be capable of doing similar damage to the insides of electronics? I suppose that's only when the shielding is off.
The nuke described sounds just like the "Coldbringer" described in the Dark Knight Returns 10 years ago though.
Now that P600 chips are out we're nearly into the microwave region of light - the shielding will get greater so surely this will have less of an effect?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh good grief we're back to this ...
It's not up to the non-believer to prove the lack of existence of God.
Otherwise they'd have to prove the lack of existence of every god which could be conceived.
That's why it's up to the believer to prove the existence of their god.
To not follow the precepts of the religion would be tantamount to suicide as their imaginary sense of being would be in an imaginary sense of peril. Fixed that for you.
Someone needs to read his history a bit better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow
Then you might as well drink Scotch ...
http://www.auchentoshan.com/
http://www.discovering-distilleries.com/glenkinchie
You can do so much better than that ...
http://www.auchentoshan.com/ [auchentoshan.com]
http://www.bruichladdich.com/ [bruichladdich.com]
http://www.glengarioch.com/ [glengarioch.com]
http://www.ardbeg.com/ardbeg/ [ardbeg.com]
Planting a whole planet just for ratings would be a bit excessive wouldn't it? ;)
In the UK we also have a system called TrafficMaster [trafficmaster.co.uk] which analyses traffic flow for their satnav services. There is, however, nothing to prevent them working with the stores to cross-reference number-plates against traffic flow. So now the store can find out exactly where you're driving as well.
That kind of information is something I never signed up for & one of the reasons I'll never have a store loyalty card.
Yes.
Watson is given the "answer" (remember it's Jeopardy) as textual input at the same time as it is read to the other contestants. It then figures out all the likely questions along with the likelihood of each of them being right. Only once it's figured out which answer it's actually going to answer will it buzz in.
It won't use the additional time which a human has after they've buzzed to continue to think about the problem - unlike the human competitors.
The thing about Jennings is that in the end he just buzzed for everything because he was so confident he knew he could figure it out during the thinking time. Consequently if Watson is to win it's got to come up with the right answer in the time it takes for the question to be read and the reaction time the other competitors will take to buzz. This'll come out at ~ 3 seconds.
When you think about the problem like that, all of the crap people are spouting about "it gets the question as text rather than _hearing_ it" and "it's got a huge database to search" becomes moot since it's got to so much to do in just 3 seconds!
la vache?
Engineer: 2 + 2 = probably 4 but we'll call it 10 to be on the safe side.
Oh come on... have you read them?
They aren't childrens books at all.
- They don't have any sex.
- They don't have any violence (well not gruesome violence anyway).
- They don't have any swearing.
Does that define them as children's books? Or are they just really good, timeless stories which appeal to all ages and don't need any of the Hollywood glorification which you get in typical "airport" novels.
This same argument is rolled out every time a graphic novel wins a hugo or a nebula award - "that's not a real book."
Come on - get a grip! They are great books which attract people back to reading - is that really all that bad?
Because there's no other way to carry out the experiments.
There really is a lot of stuff about a nuclear explosion which doesn't just apply to the weapons industry.
An article wouldn't get a great deal of readers if it were written about a new computer designed to simulate the action of subatomic particles in a star. If the press release says "NUCLEAR WEAPONS" all over it then people read it & post it to their news sites.
Dg.
Oops...
Was writing from memory not from calculation...
Still 3GHz isn't that far off - we're already in the 1GHz region on super-cooled kit.
Aren't mobile phones meant to be capable of doing similar damage to the insides of electronics? I suppose that's only when the shielding is off.
The nuke described sounds just like the "Coldbringer" described in the Dark Knight Returns 10 years ago though.
Now that P600 chips are out we're nearly into the microwave region of light - the shielding will get greater so surely this will have less of an effect?