Without reading the studies you cite, I can anecdotally say that my Chinese girlfriend, who has a fairly strong accent, is able to give commands to her iPhone. I found that impressive. Maybe voice recognition is almost there.
Sorry, the next step, statistically, is that you fail. Most startups are failures. It's a risky venture. I think this is the wrong approach. It's just political theatre anyhow.
How can you possibly get "20 times" more efficient than that?
By not believing wikipedia? LOL Also note wikipedia says "some reports", not that conventional electrolysis (whatever that is) is 70% efficient.
Finally, perhaps by 20 times more inefficient, they mean that they waste 1/20 of the energy, meaning it goes from 30% loss to 1.5% loss.
Use your imagination, fool!:-)
This is a good point. As a secular humanist, it is on me to develop positive supportive frameworks for people to live inside -- else why should they choose a philosophy that is dry, purely intellectual, and ignores the full richness of human experience? Religion provides so much for people that has nothing to do with the fantasy lies it spins. This is why people stay religious, and until atheists like myself come up with something better, we're going to win all the idea battles and lose the war for "souls", I think.
The first point of yours is being increasingly addressed by progress in positive psychology. We are making advances in understanding our brain. I use "mental crutches" as you put it, by being intentionally grateful, recognizing when my negativity is optional, etc., and feel no need to worship the crutch as another person said below.
As atheists, we have to stop being such head cases and recognize that matters of the heart are important. I believe that if people had a rational framework for life that offered opportunities to build community, taught them to be part of a larger meaning that does good in the world, and gave them "mental crutches," they would abandon the embarrassing fairy tales. It is incumbent upon us as atheists to provide this. Our empty complaints about religion's ubiquity are as empty as claims of the existence of a deity.
You have to deal with what people believe. Religion is among other things a standard by which ideas and codes of conduct are often shoehorned for better and worse.
It's for worse, not for better. Just because people are religious in large numbers in our country is no reason to let them rest. Have no mercy on them -- keep confronting them with the lies and vacuousness of their primitive incantations. The way to "deal with" what people believe is to call them on it. As a great man once said, "What you can believe without evidence I can dismiss without evidence." Religion poisons our public discourse with a demand for respect for "faith," which is the claimed right to publicly proclaim idiotic ideas without evidence because it's "sacred." Enough! Let's keep chipping away -- religion is more and more on the retreat. Reason is winning the debate.
You are assuming that intelligence == more selfishness. In my experience, the more people learn and grow in life, the less selfish they become. As we progress as a culture, we are going to grow beyond the current view that men are inherently antisocial and competitive. Evolution has developed us to cooperate. Cooperation is a smart way to live. We'll figure it out. Don"t let all the bullshit fighting on television and newspapers make you think that's the way human beings really are. You know better. Look around. Don't be afraid of progress.
Off topic perhaps, but why are we still rewarding people for having kids? I.e., why is this contingent on you having a child? I don't see the connection, no pun intended.
How can a company be found guilty of something? I hate this legalese bullshit. We need to clearly distinguish between corporations and people in our laws. The conflating of the two is a corrupting influence.
Wouldn't it be great if the revenue from the cameras was used to create a new traffic system that creates better drivability in the city, instead of relying on stoplight timers, which doesn't work? They could create traffic corridors in the city that are directional and don't stop, etc.
... if they crank up the penalty so that it is 10 times the reward for trolling in the first place and take away their law license on the second offense. The risk of getting caught is low, so the penalty needs to be high so people notice.
I think there is no data being sold. As the article itself points out, no data leaves the network, only ads go IN. I do see one bit of data has to leave the network: the user must have a cookie set or something that identifies that they are responding to the ad. The advertiser then connects the ad to your data -- but you are the one that gives your personal data. I just don't see a privacy breach here.
True, but with Google, I chalk that up to lack of attention rather than actual intent. With Facebook, Zuckerberg is on record repeatedly saying all your data should be public, and has a track record of pushing that envelope against the wishes of his users. To be fair, often he sets new boundaries with his philosophy but he does so at my risk. Google does none of this. They tend to screw up social media because their culture does not support it much, but they are learning, and might get it right this time.
Why does it have to be just one way? Clearly they are going to smear each other as much as possible. With Zuckerberg involved, this is going to get very dirty very fast. I for one welcome my new Google+ overlord. I trust Google more than Facebook. By a mile.
The point of knowing the origin of each file is to avoid infringement, but if you want to avoid infringement, then you simply won't infringe, so your whole collection is whitelisted by default.
But the poster has explicitly said he has infringed with 10% of his music. He just doesn't know which 10%.
I agree with earlier post that said what you want is to know how the RIAA does it -- they are the only ones who care.
Slashdot Mirror
Without reading the studies you cite, I can anecdotally say that my Chinese girlfriend, who has a fairly strong accent, is able to give commands to her iPhone. I found that impressive. Maybe voice recognition is almost there.
More details here: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/
Sorry, the next step, statistically, is that you fail. Most startups are failures. It's a risky venture. I think this is the wrong approach. It's just political theatre anyhow.
LOL -- the "flavor of vinyl" basically means distortion and inaccuracy, doesn't it?
If Congress is concerned about privacy, maybe they should stop warrantless wiretapping and war by executive fiat. Just a thought.
How can you possibly get "20 times" more efficient than that?
By not believing wikipedia? LOL Also note wikipedia says "some reports", not that conventional electrolysis (whatever that is) is 70% efficient. Finally, perhaps by 20 times more inefficient, they mean that they waste 1/20 of the energy, meaning it goes from 30% loss to 1.5% loss. Use your imagination, fool! :-)
This is a good point. As a secular humanist, it is on me to develop positive supportive frameworks for people to live inside -- else why should they choose a philosophy that is dry, purely intellectual, and ignores the full richness of human experience? Religion provides so much for people that has nothing to do with the fantasy lies it spins. This is why people stay religious, and until atheists like myself come up with something better, we're going to win all the idea battles and lose the war for "souls", I think.
The first point of yours is being increasingly addressed by progress in positive psychology. We are making advances in understanding our brain. I use "mental crutches" as you put it, by being intentionally grateful, recognizing when my negativity is optional, etc., and feel no need to worship the crutch as another person said below. As atheists, we have to stop being such head cases and recognize that matters of the heart are important. I believe that if people had a rational framework for life that offered opportunities to build community, taught them to be part of a larger meaning that does good in the world, and gave them "mental crutches," they would abandon the embarrassing fairy tales. It is incumbent upon us as atheists to provide this. Our empty complaints about religion's ubiquity are as empty as claims of the existence of a deity.
You have to deal with what people believe. Religion is among other things a standard by which ideas and codes of conduct are often shoehorned for better and worse.
It's for worse, not for better. Just because people are religious in large numbers in our country is no reason to let them rest. Have no mercy on them -- keep confronting them with the lies and vacuousness of their primitive incantations. The way to "deal with" what people believe is to call them on it. As a great man once said, "What you can believe without evidence I can dismiss without evidence." Religion poisons our public discourse with a demand for respect for "faith," which is the claimed right to publicly proclaim idiotic ideas without evidence because it's "sacred." Enough! Let's keep chipping away -- religion is more and more on the retreat. Reason is winning the debate.
I wanted to explore something cooler.
Knock yourself out! :-)
Another incredible, mind-boggling possibility: measurement error -- the particle did not exceed the speed of light.
You are assuming that intelligence == more selfishness. In my experience, the more people learn and grow in life, the less selfish they become. As we progress as a culture, we are going to grow beyond the current view that men are inherently antisocial and competitive. Evolution has developed us to cooperate. Cooperation is a smart way to live. We'll figure it out. Don"t let all the bullshit fighting on television and newspapers make you think that's the way human beings really are. You know better. Look around. Don't be afraid of progress.
Off topic perhaps, but why are we still rewarding people for having kids? I.e., why is this contingent on you having a child? I don't see the connection, no pun intended.
How can a company be found guilty of something? I hate this legalese bullshit. We need to clearly distinguish between corporations and people in our laws. The conflating of the two is a corrupting influence.
Wouldn't it be great if the revenue from the cameras was used to create a new traffic system that creates better drivability in the city, instead of relying on stoplight timers, which doesn't work? They could create traffic corridors in the city that are directional and don't stop, etc.
If you find yourself having to explain why your comment is not racist, maybe you might consider that in fact it was. LOL
... if they crank up the penalty so that it is 10 times the reward for trolling in the first place and take away their law license on the second offense. The risk of getting caught is low, so the penalty needs to be high so people notice.
How is this "huge?" What the hell are you going to do with it? Someone tweets and uses an exclamation point, so you... what now?
I think there is no data being sold. As the article itself points out, no data leaves the network, only ads go IN. I do see one bit of data has to leave the network: the user must have a cookie set or something that identifies that they are responding to the ad. The advertiser then connects the ad to your data -- but you are the one that gives your personal data. I just don't see a privacy breach here.
So, what's the chance this could be used by terrorists to shoot down commercial airliners?
True, but with Google, I chalk that up to lack of attention rather than actual intent. With Facebook, Zuckerberg is on record repeatedly saying all your data should be public, and has a track record of pushing that envelope against the wishes of his users. To be fair, often he sets new boundaries with his philosophy but he does so at my risk. Google does none of this. They tend to screw up social media because their culture does not support it much, but they are learning, and might get it right this time.
Why does it have to be just one way? Clearly they are going to smear each other as much as possible. With Zuckerberg involved, this is going to get very dirty very fast. I for one welcome my new Google+ overlord. I trust Google more than Facebook. By a mile.
The point of knowing the origin of each file is to avoid infringement, but if you want to avoid infringement, then you simply won't infringe, so your whole collection is whitelisted by default.
But the poster has explicitly said he has infringed with 10% of his music. He just doesn't know which 10%. I agree with earlier post that said what you want is to know how the RIAA does it -- they are the only ones who care.
I'm not saying it defines who he was, I'm just guessing he didn't have much of a sense of style. LOL
I'm guessing in grade 12 nothing helped you with girls, based purely on the fact you wore that.