Feminist here. Against censorship and pro-free-speech. Being a white man myself in somewhat in favour of them too.
I'd place myself in the same grouping. It seems to be the logical one - to assume people are of equal worth until their actions prove otherwise, but to also give people second and third chances whenever it is reasonable to do so (love the sinner, if not the sin).
It's not faith, it's trust that climate scientists are following scientific principles. I both know some climate scientists, and have worked with them, and they are much the same as other scientists. Most are pretty much normal people, as much as any group is. They don't always get it right, but no one in any scientific field gets it right all of the time. Faith does not come into it, though it's trust, which is a form of laziness in terms of not reproducing the work of tens of thousands of people all myself.
A gay friend of mine is universally loved, so doesn't seem to fit your stereotype. In fact, it's true of many of the friends I have in the LGBT community. There are irritating people, though, no matter what their sexual orientation, colour, or political views are. Hopefully I am not one of the annoying ones!
Originally, I was very supportive of the whole LGBT movement and feminism etc., but, it seems like they've just veered into a place where they are anti-free-speech, anti-white-man, anti-man, anti-normal. If you don't have some kind of social dysfunction, then you are the problem. It couldn't possibly be that they are wacko!
There are a lot of people with differing views in feminism and in LGBT. Don't assume that all (or even more than a minority) are against free speech, men, white men, or anything else. I know a number of feminists, and those who are LGBT, and it is not reasonable to generalise either of these groups, let alone lump feminism and LGBT together. It's not necessarily reasonable to lump L, G, B and T together, other than they tend to face similar challenges.
In both cases, how many are related to engineering, rather than sales, logistics, etc? Google doesn't ship much physical product, so doesn't need many warehouse or distribution managers.
The best estimate of iPhones in use seems to be 700 million (November 2017). 4.77 billion mobile phones are in use. Android phones, that support Google Play, were at 2 billion (May 2017,rising 0.6 billion from the previous year), so Android phones are probably at around 2.8 billion, given a rise in usage overall, and some non-Play phones. So the proportion seems likely to be:
0.7:4.77=15% of all mobile phones
0.7/(2.8+0.7)=20% of smart phones, maybe as much as 25% if Android is static
No, it doesn't. If three phones are sold, only one of which is blue, blue phones, the market share of blue phones is 33%. If I sell three billion, of which 1 billion are blue, it's still 33%.
You can be as determined if you like, but if you don't have the money to, say, sit the exam to get a qualification, it doesn't matter how much determination you have and how much time to study. Determination is certainly required, though. To some extent, though, if you have money you can buy time (not work) and support (go on in-person courses), which means less determination is required.
It might not be cost-competitive in the sense that a given solar, wind, etc., installation might be more cost-effective long-term, but it may be useful to bridge gaps in renewable production which are longer than the storage capacity available. That's an expensive way to utilise power, but having hospitals and other critical infrastructure turn off isn't considered acceptable either. It may be that storage technology advances sufficiently, though, or peaking gas plants end up being more cost-effective. Time will tell.
I used to work in the area (and would be happy to do so again), and to me progress in AI looks to be slower that was anticipated in optimistic projections 25 years ago, except for the application of more powerful computing infrastructure. I'd agree that it is possible that this time round, the optimistic projections of progress might come to pass, though.
I know people who work in plasma physics and fusion research, so it would be interesting to get their view of the MIT work.
We don't even have the Concorde anymore, how come that solved problem isn't even part of the landscape any more?
The engineering part is solved, just not the economics, given the price of fuel. Concorde is basically a reconnaissance bomber with seats instead of bombs or cameras and radar, so was an attempt to turn cold war swords into ploughshares to make the French think the UK liked them.
I recently flew to Frankfurt from outside London. It would have been similar door-to-door on the train, and about the same cost, although there are sometimes very cheap airfares on offer, which would tip the balance.
Slashdot Mirror
Feminist here. Against censorship and pro-free-speech. Being a white man myself in somewhat in favour of them too.
I'd place myself in the same grouping. It seems to be the logical one - to assume people are of equal worth until their actions prove otherwise, but to also give people second and third chances whenever it is reasonable to do so (love the sinner, if not the sin).
It's not faith, it's trust that climate scientists are following scientific principles. I both know some climate scientists, and have worked with them, and they are much the same as other scientists. Most are pretty much normal people, as much as any group is. They don't always get it right, but no one in any scientific field gets it right all of the time. Faith does not come into it, though it's trust, which is a form of laziness in terms of not reproducing the work of tens of thousands of people all myself.
A gay friend of mine is universally loved, so doesn't seem to fit your stereotype. In fact, it's true of many of the friends I have in the LGBT community. There are irritating people, though, no matter what their sexual orientation, colour, or political views are. Hopefully I am not one of the annoying ones!
Originally, I was very supportive of the whole LGBT movement and feminism etc., but, it seems like they've just veered into a place where they are anti-free-speech, anti-white-man, anti-man, anti-normal. If you don't have some kind of social dysfunction, then you are the problem. It couldn't possibly be that they are wacko!
There are a lot of people with differing views in feminism and in LGBT. Don't assume that all (or even more than a minority) are against free speech, men, white men, or anything else. I know a number of feminists, and those who are LGBT, and it is not reasonable to generalise either of these groups, let alone lump feminism and LGBT together. It's not necessarily reasonable to lump L, G, B and T together, other than they tend to face similar challenges.
WV?
In both cases, how many are related to engineering, rather than sales, logistics, etc? Google doesn't ship much physical product, so doesn't need many warehouse or distribution managers.
Spoofing is likely to be banned in the T&Cs, so the result will probably be account termination.
The best estimate of iPhones in use seems to be 700 million (November 2017). 4.77 billion mobile phones are in use. Android phones, that support Google Play, were at 2 billion (May 2017,rising 0.6 billion from the previous year), so Android phones are probably at around 2.8 billion, given a rise in usage overall, and some non-Play phones. So the proportion seems likely to be:
,
Caveats and error bars will apply
That's a snapshot of usage, not a market percentage. It's a useful statistic, though.
And the police operations cost exactly nothing too. Er, hold on...
"I'm locked in the bathroom. My husband is battering tn the door, saying he will kill me".
"Madam, can you quote your driving license number?"
"No, it's in the living room, in my purse"
"Sorry, Madam, we can't help you. Goodbye"
No, it doesn't. If three phones are sold, only one of which is blue, blue phones, the market share of blue phones is 33%. If I sell three billion, of which 1 billion are blue, it's still 33%.
Assuming there is sufficient fissile material for their design, perhaps.
Er, so you are agreeing with me?
Put it another way, if there is one person who wants to buy 10 widgets, or 10 people who want to buy 1 each, the size of the market is 10 widgets.
You can be as determined if you like, but if you don't have the money to, say, sit the exam to get a qualification, it doesn't matter how much determination you have and how much time to study. Determination is certainly required, though. To some extent, though, if you have money you can buy time (not work) and support (go on in-person courses), which means less determination is required.
The size of the market is the size it is, whether people buy more than one of an item or not.
I'm tempted to install vanilla Android on my Moto, even given the small bricking risk.
It might not be cost-competitive in the sense that a given solar, wind, etc., installation might be more cost-effective long-term, but it may be useful to bridge gaps in renewable production which are longer than the storage capacity available. That's an expensive way to utilise power, but having hospitals and other critical infrastructure turn off isn't considered acceptable either. It may be that storage technology advances sufficiently, though, or peaking gas plants end up being more cost-effective. Time will tell.
Maybe 7 years, if you take the mid point of each decade.
70+50=120, 90+30=120, so it should be ready in 5 years?
I used to work in the area (and would be happy to do so again), and to me progress in AI looks to be slower that was anticipated in optimistic projections 25 years ago, except for the application of more powerful computing infrastructure. I'd agree that it is possible that this time round, the optimistic projections of progress might come to pass, though.
I know people who work in plasma physics and fusion research, so it would be interesting to get their view of the MIT work.
We don't even have the Concorde anymore, how come that solved problem isn't even part of the landscape any more?
The engineering part is solved, just not the economics, given the price of fuel. Concorde is basically a reconnaissance bomber with seats instead of bombs or cameras and radar, so was an attempt to turn cold war swords into ploughshares to make the French think the UK liked them.
TL;DR
I recently flew to Frankfurt from outside London. It would have been similar door-to-door on the train, and about the same cost, although there are sometimes very cheap airfares on offer, which would tip the balance.
Except that it does translate to 14%.