I'm not against time off for mothers. It's nice to have some time at home with the baby, and in some cases after a C-Section it really make sense.
But for the fathers? That's 3 months for exactly what? Moral support?
If the time off in case of pregnancy is not equal for both genders then we have the (current) situation where a male is slightly preferred for a position as they require less pain time off. Over an entire population, that preference is seen in the average salaries offered.
Have you looked in your crystal ball to say all that? I get it, you don't trust the evolution of AI. But it is still going to work and save many lives.
Have you looked into your crystal ball to say that? Over the last 40 years there has been little to no improvement in the software for AI. All the improvements have come from the hardware.
With software you can't tell if you're 90% on the way to solving the problem or if you're 5% done. You can't even tell if a problem is solvable!?
Classical Music doesn't get rid of the riff-raff, it is a statement of saying that we do not want kids here, or we prefer that particular type of ambiance.
OTOH, we really want to keep kids away from Jazz-Classical... it's all sax and violins.
All you have to do is put your head up and look around at every other first world nation with stricter gun laws than ours. They all have lower homocide rates.
No, they don't. You meant to say "lower gun deaths" as a means of equivacating "deaths" with "gun deaths", but in your haste you said something else.
The USA has more guns than most countries, and yet still manage fewer homicides than countries with fewer guns and stricter gun laws.
Reading through the comments, I get the impression that a significant number of Slashdot readers had pretty crappy childhoods that they still haven't gotten over as adults. I'm genuinely sorry to see that.
No. Your ignoring the fact that TBBT was created for normal people, not smart people. As a show for normal people it succeeded brilliantly by making smart people the butt of all jokes.
Tip: if you find it funny, you're not among the smart people. Sorry.
A calorie deficit is not enough. You need to have a good balance or the weight will just pop back.
A temporary calorie deficit is not enough. A permanent calorie deficit is enough.
Last I checked, the human body does not spontaneously create energy. Claiming that weight can be gained while on a calorie deficit is the same as claiming that the body creates its own energy
more and more we're finding that people's failings aren't their own.
No. You're misreading the science(s). More and more we're finding that some peoples failings are not their own. The clear majority of people have failings that are their own.
I mean, just using this article as an example - only 29% of night shift workers are in danger of becoming obese due to working night shifts. You can't very well point to a random obese person and claim "not their fault" because the odds are against
a) Them being a night shift worker, and
b) Them being in the 29% that may be prone to gain weight as a result of night shift work.
If you and I were to sit in a public place, and you bet that each passing obese person had gained weight through no fault of their own and I bet that they instead simply exercised too little and ate too much, you'd lose your money.
Regardless of the blunder, my point still stands. Here is the fine print regarding this specific vulnerability, which tends to confirm they're not really claiming they can protect against this.
"Although confidential mode helps prevent the recipients from accidentally sharing your email, it doesn't prevent recipients from taking screenshots or photos of your messages or attachments..."
I wasn't disputing your point, I was disputing your word selection. I agree wholeheartedly with your point, and wanted to ensure that your argument makes its way into the world with as few language errors as possible.
I unreservedly apologise if it seemed contentious.
The do follow, you just seem unable to keep up.
When they said they were going to put a man on the moon, people (like you) said it was impossible and it would never happen. They were wrong.
When they said they were going to create a huge accelerator and smash atoms into each other at really high speeds so they could crack them open to see what was inside, people (like you) said it would destroy the planet and end civilization as we know it. They were wrong.
When they set out to write a computer program that could beat grand masters at chess, people (like you) said it was impossible, that the game was too complicated. They were wrong.
Can you see how it follows now?
I can go on if you like, when they said that they were going to split the atom and create a single bomb that could destroy a city, people (like you) said it was impossible. They were wrong.
When they created the internal combustion engine, people (like you) said it would never replace a horse and buggy.They were wrong.
"They" also said time-travel into the past is impossible. Just because someone once said something was impossible and then it became possible it does not mean that the things now being claimed as possible would ever be possible.
For example, Turing proved that there are classes of problems where, not only can we not determine the solution, we also cannot determine if there is a solution.
You need to explain why you believe that autonomous driving on current roads is a problem for which there can exist a solution, because from a software PoV it is not possible to determine if any given problem has a solution (other than trivial problems with no conditionals).
This is because people are finally realizing how impractical cryptocurrencies are.
The problem is cryptocoins have very few legitimate applications beyond resale to the next bigger fool. Once the fool pool is depleted, the value has nowhere to go but down. It will probably never reach $0 though, as there will always be illegal uses (money laundering, drug money, ransomware, etc.) propping up the value.
Also, there are new fools being born every minute. The fool pool can never be depleted because the supply of fools is virtually infinite.
I like the claim that men aren't also gullible led by marketing and never buy things for looks rather than utility.
I'm not claiming that men are not gullible, only that women are choosing clothing with less utility compared to men. (Note that I am also *NOT* claiming that men choose only on the basis of utility, I'm claiming that men reject clothing which doesn't meet a baseline for utility while women are not doing the same).
No conspiracy theory needed: women's trousers with large pockets exist, but are chosen much less often than women's trousers with small pockets.
The far right is indistinguishable from the far left.
The far right wants to preserve some version of racial "purity" that boils down eliminating anyone who is not purely from white "races". The far left wants to eliminate the far right. Seem pretty different to me.
The far left wants to eliminate anyone who opposes them. Seems pretty much the same to me. It seems different to you because, ideally, you don't *want* to be associated with a group of thugs, but for all practical purposes, if you are far left, you already are.
Do you have any evidence or are you just JAQing off?
To be fair, the "research" doesn't have much evidence either - their findings are within the error bars for a 95% CI. When someone comes out with "I have these results which aren't statistically significant" it's pretty much normal to ask for which confounding variables were dismissed.
Frankly, people SHOULD have the right to protest against wrong or abhorrent views.
Giving people the right to protest against things you don't support also gives them the right to protest against things you support. Unfortunately the recent wave of activism has been around shutting down only *some* peoples right to protest.
Put another way, if you support the prevention of protesting against the policies that *YOU* support, then you're a hypocritical asshole, regardless of what policies you actually support.
Slashdot Mirror
It was a yes or no question.
So is "Have you stopped beating your wife?". A refusal to answer "yes" or "no" doesn't indicate anything useful.
That's because all of the learning/reasoning software that we proudly call AI is not AI at all.
Yes it is.
It's just a series of pattern recognition and reasoning operations ...
.
Uhm... but that would make those systems AI
What kind of an idiot believes that regexes are AI? After all, those are merely a series of pattern recognition and reasoning operators!
I'm not against time off for mothers. It's nice to have some time at home with the baby, and in some cases after a C-Section it really make sense.
But for the fathers? That's 3 months for exactly what? Moral support?
If the time off in case of pregnancy is not equal for both genders then we have the (current) situation where a male is slightly preferred for a position as they require less pain time off. Over an entire population, that preference is seen in the average salaries offered.
Have you looked in your crystal ball to say all that? I get it, you don't trust the evolution of AI. But it is still going to work and save many lives.
Have you looked into your crystal ball to say that? Over the last 40 years there has been little to no improvement in the software for AI. All the improvements have come from the hardware.
With software you can't tell if you're 90% on the way to solving the problem or if you're 5% done. You can't even tell if a problem is solvable!?
Classical Music doesn't get rid of the riff-raff, it is a statement of saying that we do not want kids here, or we prefer that particular type of ambiance.
OTOH, we really want to keep kids away from Jazz-Classical ... it's all sax and violins.
America is only 11 when it comes to mass shooting casualties per capita.
Ah yes, the infamous, "But when you look at the statistics. . ." bullshit argument.
What do you want to do? Ignore any stats that disprove an ideology?
If you find yourself claiming an argument to be bullshit just because facts are brought up you are not going to have an easy time in the world.
Not being armed doesn't make you helpless, especially if in all likelihood the attacker won't have a gun either.
Doesn't mean the attacker won't be armed. It just means that you won't be armed while the attacker will be.
All you have to do is put your head up and look around at every other first world nation with stricter gun laws than ours. They all have lower homocide rates.
No, they don't. You meant to say "lower gun deaths" as a means of equivacating "deaths" with "gun deaths", but in your haste you said something else.
The USA has more guns than most countries, and yet still manage fewer homicides than countries with fewer guns and stricter gun laws.
Where that theory falls apart is all the jokes that normal people wouldn't get.
You're missing the point that the show survives on the jokes that people *do* get. The smart jokes are few and far between.
If most of the jokes were smart and the show deep, it wouldn't have been the success with non-smart people that it is.
It's more popular amongst the non-smart folks than the smart folk.
It was even hard for the laugh track to laugh. Btw, have you ever seen an episode with the laugh track removed, like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKS3MGriZcs
I'm thinking that this a strawman argument as I bet you can engender the same negative reactive by listening to *any* sitcom without a laugh track.
Go ahead. Show me those unfunny episodes of Better Off Ted, or Scrubs... There's plenty of popular sitcoms that are funny without a laugh track.
Reading through the comments, I get the impression that a significant number of Slashdot readers had pretty crappy childhoods that they still haven't gotten over as adults. I'm genuinely sorry to see that.
No. Your ignoring the fact that TBBT was created for normal people, not smart people. As a show for normal people it succeeded brilliantly by making smart people the butt of all jokes.
Tip: if you find it funny, you're not among the smart people. Sorry.
A calorie deficit is not enough. You need to have a good balance or the weight will just pop back.
A temporary calorie deficit is not enough. A permanent calorie deficit is enough.
Last I checked, the human body does not spontaneously create energy. Claiming that weight can be gained while on a calorie deficit is the same as claiming that the body creates its own energy
more and more we're finding that people's failings aren't their own.
No. You're misreading the science(s). More and more we're finding that some peoples failings are not their own. The clear majority of people have failings that are their own.
I mean, just using this article as an example - only 29% of night shift workers are in danger of becoming obese due to working night shifts. You can't very well point to a random obese person and claim "not their fault" because the odds are against
a) Them being a night shift worker, and
b) Them being in the 29% that may be prone to gain weight as a result of night shift work.
If you and I were to sit in a public place, and you bet that each passing obese person had gained weight through no fault of their own and I bet that they instead simply exercised too little and ate too much, you'd lose your money.
Irregardless isn't a word. It's a blunder.
Regardless of the blunder, my point still stands. Here is the fine print regarding this specific vulnerability, which tends to confirm they're not really claiming they can protect against this.
"Although confidential mode helps prevent the recipients from accidentally sharing your email, it doesn't prevent recipients from taking screenshots or photos of your messages or attachments..."
I wasn't disputing your point, I was disputing your word selection. I agree wholeheartedly with your point, and wanted to ensure that your argument makes its way into the world with as few language errors as possible.
I unreservedly apologise if it seemed contentious.
The do follow, you just seem unable to keep up. When they said they were going to put a man on the moon, people (like you) said it was impossible and it would never happen. They were wrong. When they said they were going to create a huge accelerator and smash atoms into each other at really high speeds so they could crack them open to see what was inside, people (like you) said it would destroy the planet and end civilization as we know it. They were wrong. When they set out to write a computer program that could beat grand masters at chess, people (like you) said it was impossible, that the game was too complicated. They were wrong. Can you see how it follows now? I can go on if you like, when they said that they were going to split the atom and create a single bomb that could destroy a city, people (like you) said it was impossible. They were wrong. When they created the internal combustion engine, people (like you) said it would never replace a horse and buggy.They were wrong.
"They" also said time-travel into the past is impossible. Just because someone once said something was impossible and then it became possible it does not mean that the things now being claimed as possible would ever be possible.
For example, Turing proved that there are classes of problems where, not only can we not determine the solution, we also cannot determine if there is a solution.
You need to explain why you believe that autonomous driving on current roads is a problem for which there can exist a solution, because from a software PoV it is not possible to determine if any given problem has a solution (other than trivial problems with no conditionals).
Irregardless isn't a word. It's a blunder.
This is because people are finally realizing how impractical cryptocurrencies are.
The problem is cryptocoins have very few legitimate applications beyond resale to the next bigger fool. Once the fool pool is depleted, the value has nowhere to go but down. It will probably never reach $0 though, as there will always be illegal uses (money laundering, drug money, ransomware, etc.) propping up the value.
Also, there are new fools being born every minute. The fool pool can never be depleted because the supply of fools is virtually infinite.
I like the claim that men aren't also gullible led by marketing and never buy things for looks rather than utility.
I'm not claiming that men are not gullible, only that women are choosing clothing with less utility compared to men. (Note that I am also *NOT* claiming that men choose only on the basis of utility, I'm claiming that men reject clothing which doesn't meet a baseline for utility while women are not doing the same).
No conspiracy theory needed: women's trousers with large pockets exist, but are chosen much less often than women's trousers with small pockets.
As for your computer... It's not really yours, you know.
Flightgear runs fine on Linux, and is as accurate as far as I can tell on the Cessna 172.
The far right is indistinguishable from the far left.
The far right wants to preserve some version of racial "purity" that boils down eliminating anyone who is not purely from white "races". The far left wants to eliminate the far right. Seem pretty different to me.
The far left wants to eliminate anyone who opposes them. Seems pretty much the same to me. It seems different to you because, ideally, you don't *want* to be associated with a group of thugs, but for all practical purposes, if you are far left, you already are.
Absurd strawman of the academic left is blamed for a long-standing undercurrent of the political right --modded +5 insightful.
I just thought I would point that out
How is that a strawman? Both groups are screeching about non-existent oppression that they are subjected to.
The far right is indistinguishable from the far left.
Here, take these handcuffs.
Username checks out.
How about them?
Do you have any evidence or are you just JAQing off?
To be fair, the "research" doesn't have much evidence either - their findings are within the error bars for a 95% CI. When someone comes out with "I have these results which aren't statistically significant" it's pretty much normal to ask for which confounding variables were dismissed.
The difference in outcomes between male and female doctors treating women is statistically significant but small in comparison to these bigger issues.
I don't think you know what "statistically significant" means.
Frankly, people SHOULD have the right to protest against wrong or abhorrent views.
Giving people the right to protest against things you don't support also gives them the right to protest against things you support. Unfortunately the recent wave of activism has been around shutting down only *some* peoples right to protest.
Put another way, if you support the prevention of protesting against the policies that *YOU* support, then you're a hypocritical asshole, regardless of what policies you actually support.