Why would there be no deniers if researchers almost unanimously agree? Biologists nearly unanimously agree that evolution is caused by random mutations and natural selection, but there are many millions of people that believe an intelligent agent designed all DNA. Never underestimate the power of a person to disagree if agreeing means that they will need to alter their worldview.
I think everyone agrees abortion should be avoided. The people who want to keep/make it legal know that abortions will happen whether they are legal or not. The idea is that if abortion is legal, it will be done in a properly medically supervised way, rather than with a rusty coat hanger in a dark alley. It's not like anyone is cheering, "Yea! Abortions are great!"
So, sure, everyone agrees that the need for abortion should be avoided. Proper education, easily available birth control, and adoptions can go a long way to reducing the need for abortions. I think if there need to be abortions, the morning after pill or something similar is probably the most ethical way to go about it.
I believe it to be the heat trapped by greenhouse gases released by humans burning fossil fuels. I don't think there are suddenly volcanoes popping up all over Antarctica, Greenland, and the Arctic.
You're aware that not everything can be defined, right? Even in mathematics, sets are not defined. If there was something used to define what a set is, we would need a definition of whatever that thing is, ad infinitum. A dictionary always give definitions of words in terms of other words. You have to understand what some subset of words in a particular language means before you can use a dictionary for that language.
It looks to me like the patent was invalidated because you can't patent an abstract idea. You can't patent the abstract idea of a vehicle with four wheels that uses an internal combustion engine to transport people and cargo. But you can patent the invention of a specific type of automobile, provided that you provide a concrete implementation of that idea by integrating building blocks into a new invention.
Held
: Because the claims are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea,
they are not patent eligible under 101. Pp. 5–17.
(a)
The Court has long held that 101, which defines the subject
matter eligible for patent protecti
on, contains an implicit exception
for ‘
“[l]aws of nature, natural phen
omena, and abstract ideas.’
”
As
-
sociation for Molecular Pathology
v.
Myriad Genetics, Inc.
, 569 U. S.
___, ___. In applying the 101 except
ion, this Court must distinguish
patents that claim the “ ‘buildin[g
] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity,
which are ineligible for patent prot
ection, from thos
e that integrate the building blocks into something more, see
Mayo Collaborative Ser
-
vices
v.
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
, 566 U. S. ___, ___, thereby
“transform[ing]” them into a
patent-eligible invention,
id.,
at ___.
Pp. 5–6."
I've preferred Python for small projects and Java for larger projects. I like Java, but it's so verbose that it's annoying to write short programs in it. I've been learning Scala over the past few months, and it looks like it combines the best of both worlds. Programs are much terser than they are in Java, often looking more like what I would write in Python. But Scala is typechecked like Java is so you see errors at compile time rather than when conditions are right to trigger a problem as in Python. Scala also runs on the JVM, so it's fast as opposed to Python.
Both deprive revenue to the creators and distributors of content. So arguing that copying is not stealing is disingenuous. It's true, but it completely misses that both actions have the same effect This is why copyright exists -- to protect the rights of the people who produce content to be reimbursed for their efforts.
So... if I sell a digital copy of a movie to someone... they can watch the movie then return it for a full refund within 14 days?
Why ever rent a movie again? Buying is now cheaper...
But, but, but... I thought copying wasn't stealing!!!
There's no way most CS PhD students could go on to be professors. Most professors advise many PhD students, so the number of CS professors would have to double every few decades if that were the case. Most CS PhD students move on to do research in industry: Microsoft, Google, and so on. I just got my masters degree in CS, and I actually do know where the PhDs go -- overwhelmingly to the west coast to work in industry.
Once my wife woke me at 2am to fix some code in a Perl script I had written months earlier. It took a few minutes to figure out what was wrong, but I soon realized it was a case that I realized could happen when I wrote the code, but I didn't account for. Maybe it took 10-15 minutes to fix the bug, and I went right back to bed. Good thing I wrote readable Perl code.
The bug was in some code that removed rows and columns of no data from a table. Where there was no data, there was a period "." in the input instead. When I wrote the code it was just easier for me to assume that the first column would never have missing data. It took months to hit this case, and it happened at 2am when my wife was on a tight deadline.
Well, sure, there are many correlations among things that obviously have no relationship to each other. If you take all data on all topics under the sun, I'm sure you can find tons of coincidences.
But we do know that the brain influences behavior, and our experience shapes our brain. Therefore, it stands to reason that it's pretty likely that watching porn causes a small striatum, or a small striatum causes men to watch more porn, or some other factor is causing both. It might be a coincidence from that data, but we could discover if this is the case by collecting more data. If the correlation becomes much weaker from more data, we can then conclude that it was just a coincidence. This is why we repeat experiments in science, so no, this is not pseudoscience as you claim.
More importantly, the human brain has feedback loops. All the artificial neural nets I've seen are only feed-forward, except during the training phase in which case there is only feed-forward or only feed-backward and never any looping of signals. In effect, the human brain is always training itself.
There's no cherry picking of one particular week or month. From TFA: "Since 1984, the area burned by the West's largest wildfires — those of more than 1,000 acres — have increased by about 87,700 acres a year, according to an April study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters."
In terms of climate, anything shorter than a decade is short-term. And no one is calling a singular event climate. Climate is the average weather over a period of decades. The increasing wildfires over the past several decades in the Southwest are a result of increasing temperatures and drought conditions over decades. That's climate change.
I can see that for years climatologists have been saying that drought-stricken areas will become even drier with more warming. And according to the article there has been a three-decade pattern of fires getting worse in the West: "Since 1984, the area burned by the West's largest wildfires — those of more than 1,000 acres — have increased by about 87,700 acres a year, according to an April study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters."
One winter is not a long-term pattern. Something that gets worse over the course of decades, in contrast, is a long-term pattern.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would there be no deniers if researchers almost unanimously agree? Biologists nearly unanimously agree that evolution is caused by random mutations and natural selection, but there are many millions of people that believe an intelligent agent designed all DNA. Never underestimate the power of a person to disagree if agreeing means that they will need to alter their worldview.
I think everyone agrees abortion should be avoided. The people who want to keep/make it legal know that abortions will happen whether they are legal or not. The idea is that if abortion is legal, it will be done in a properly medically supervised way, rather than with a rusty coat hanger in a dark alley. It's not like anyone is cheering, "Yea! Abortions are great!"
So, sure, everyone agrees that the need for abortion should be avoided. Proper education, easily available birth control, and adoptions can go a long way to reducing the need for abortions. I think if there need to be abortions, the morning after pill or something similar is probably the most ethical way to go about it.
Just to be clear, you're talking about making all drugs, prostitution, abortion, and gambling all completely legal, right?
I believe it to be the heat trapped by greenhouse gases released by humans burning fossil fuels. I don't think there are suddenly volcanoes popping up all over Antarctica, Greenland, and the Arctic.
I wonder what's making all that ice melt then.
I see your dissent and consent, and I raise you a lament!
You're aware that not everything can be defined, right? Even in mathematics, sets are not defined. If there was something used to define what a set is, we would need a definition of whatever that thing is, ad infinitum. A dictionary always give definitions of words in terms of other words. You have to understand what some subset of words in a particular language means before you can use a dictionary for that language.
In my experience, Java is significantly faster than Python. You can see Peter Norvig's timings of those languages.
I've preferred Python for small projects and Java for larger projects. I like Java, but it's so verbose that it's annoying to write short programs in it. I've been learning Scala over the past few months, and it looks like it combines the best of both worlds. Programs are much terser than they are in Java, often looking more like what I would write in Python. But Scala is typechecked like Java is so you see errors at compile time rather than when conditions are right to trigger a problem as in Python. Scala also runs on the JVM, so it's fast as opposed to Python.
Hmmm... Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Both deprive revenue to the creators and distributors of content. So arguing that copying is not stealing is disingenuous. It's true, but it completely misses that both actions have the same effect This is why copyright exists -- to protect the rights of the people who produce content to be reimbursed for their efforts.
But, but, but... I thought copying wasn't stealing!!!
There's no way most CS PhD students could go on to be professors. Most professors advise many PhD students, so the number of CS professors would have to double every few decades if that were the case. Most CS PhD students move on to do research in industry: Microsoft, Google, and so on. I just got my masters degree in CS, and I actually do know where the PhDs go -- overwhelmingly to the west coast to work in industry.
The planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm "The Earth plus Plastic." The planet isn't going away... we are!
Nothing can travel through space faster than light. But space can travel as fast as it likes. This is the idea behind warp drive.
Once my wife woke me at 2am to fix some code in a Perl script I had written months earlier. It took a few minutes to figure out what was wrong, but I soon realized it was a case that I realized could happen when I wrote the code, but I didn't account for. Maybe it took 10-15 minutes to fix the bug, and I went right back to bed. Good thing I wrote readable Perl code.
The bug was in some code that removed rows and columns of no data from a table. Where there was no data, there was a period "." in the input instead. When I wrote the code it was just easier for me to assume that the first column would never have missing data. It took months to hit this case, and it happened at 2am when my wife was on a tight deadline.
Good news, everyone!
Well, one forearm anyway.
Well, sure, there are many correlations among things that obviously have no relationship to each other. If you take all data on all topics under the sun, I'm sure you can find tons of coincidences.
But we do know that the brain influences behavior, and our experience shapes our brain. Therefore, it stands to reason that it's pretty likely that watching porn causes a small striatum, or a small striatum causes men to watch more porn, or some other factor is causing both. It might be a coincidence from that data, but we could discover if this is the case by collecting more data. If the correlation becomes much weaker from more data, we can then conclude that it was just a coincidence. This is why we repeat experiments in science, so no, this is not pseudoscience as you claim.
More importantly, the human brain has feedback loops. All the artificial neural nets I've seen are only feed-forward, except during the training phase in which case there is only feed-forward or only feed-backward and never any looping of signals. In effect, the human brain is always training itself.
There's no cherry picking of one particular week or month. From TFA: "Since 1984, the area burned by the West's largest wildfires — those of more than 1,000 acres — have increased by about 87,700 acres a year, according to an April study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters."
In terms of climate, anything shorter than a decade is short-term. And no one is calling a singular event climate. Climate is the average weather over a period of decades. The increasing wildfires over the past several decades in the Southwest are a result of increasing temperatures and drought conditions over decades. That's climate change.
Is a period of one month: a) short-term, or b) long-term?
I can see that for years climatologists have been saying that drought-stricken areas will become even drier with more warming. And according to the article there has been a three-decade pattern of fires getting worse in the West: "Since 1984, the area burned by the West's largest wildfires — those of more than 1,000 acres — have increased by about 87,700 acres a year, according to an April study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters."
One winter is not a long-term pattern. Something that gets worse over the course of decades, in contrast, is a long-term pattern.