There is no such legal concept as hate speech in the US. Speech can be illegal when it's fraud, slander, or directly inciting imminent violence, but not because it's hateful.
I can call something hate speech, but that's an expression of my opinion and has no legal force.
There's a reason liberals overwhelmingly support Che Guevara, Mao and Stalin's Holodomor
Is it the same reason that unicorns dislike oranges? I've never heard any of my liberal friends and relatives support any of these. I've seen intense dislike of certain governments, and some sympathy for people engaged in overthrowing them, but that's true across the political spectrum.
Didn't work for PS3 owners who wanted to continue to run Linux on their PS3s, which was an advertised feature when they bought them. Not in the US, anyway; retailers in Europe frequently had to give partial refunds.
Apparently, admitting to a reality where other people have different needs, preferences, and financial situations is "to" difficult for you.
iPhones do some things very well, some less well. Moreover, if you're going to be using something constantly for years, spending less than a dollar a day to make the use more pleasant might be a wise thing to do.
The Obama quote is Obama saying that he was wrong. The Trump quote is Trump saying that nobody could have foreseen the problems that he failed to foresee. Different things entirely.
There are actually two emoluments clauses in effect. You seem to be talking about Article I, Section 9: "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United Stated] shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." There's also Article II, Section 1: "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor decreased during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."
There's actually nothing against Trump's receiving money from rich foreigners, as long as they aren't doing it as part of a foreign government, but if he's receiving any money from any government in the US for things like security at Trump Tower or Mar-a-Lago, he's violating the Constitution.
He's the frippin' President. If he made the mistake himself, it's his fault. If he appointed someone else who made the mistake, it's his fault for the appointment. If it's wrong, it's his fault. Harry Truman had it right: the buck stops in the Oval Office.
I'm not saying Presidents can't be allowed to make mistakes. I'm saying that this is ultimately Trump's mistake.
Trump does things that sure look stupid, but they may have other explanations. His obvious lies might be to separate his supporters further from reality so they don't notice him screwing them over, for example. I'm not so sure about the incompetent ways he's done other things.
The primary goal of government is obviously not to maximize its revenues. However, it's useful to know what sorts of effects taxes will have on the economy and how much tax revenue is likely to change. I've seen enough stupid arguments that cutting taxes increases revenue, with "Laffer curve" used much like a holy invocation.
You're assuming that misdiagnosis will be a thing of the past, and I don't see that. People are complicated. Some stuff is simple and definite, and doctors don't misdiagnose (e.g., finding staph aureus in a culture). Other things are more complicated, and no system is going to get everything right. The AI is going to misdiagnose, and the survivor's relatives will argue that the AI should have prescribed a particular test (whether or not its chance of eliminating a misdiagnosis is significant enough for it to be worthwhile).
Also, there's a difference between diagnosis and surgery. An AI might well take in symptoms, order tests, and then direct treatment. If it's a drug treatment, there's very little chances for humans to screw that up. If it's surgery, there's plenty of chances, since all sorts of things can suddenly go wrong.
It's the doctor's stethoscope, and if it isn't up to snuff that's the doctor's problem. There's no reason why the doctor or the malpractice insurance company couldn't sue the stethoscope manufacturer for making bad stethoscopes.
A, B, and C are traveling in the desert and rest at an oasis. B and C both hate A, so B puts poison in A's water bottle and C arranges that it will start leaking badly a little while after being filled. A fills his canteen and rides off on his camel. He finds his water bottle is empty and dies of thirst. Who killed him?
Did B kill him? A never touched the poison. Did C kill him? All C did was remove poison, not drinkable water.
I had laser surgery on my cornea when I was suffering from Anterior Basement Membrane Dystrophy, which seems to mean something like cornea delamination. Anyway, my right eye was taped shut, and I was asked to confirm that I needed the surgery for the left.
AI diagnostics is very good at catching all the "routine" findings, not so much at outliers.
I'm not so sure about that. Humans will generally tend to think a disease is something they're already familiar with. Given hoofbeats, they look for horses. An AI can be programmed with a very large amount of data, which will generally have good information on outliers, so it might be better at spotting the occasional zebra.
(This depends on the doctor, of course. There are places where doctors will be prone to find zebras even when they aren't there.)
One thing an opaque deep-learning system could do is suggest possible diagnoses for the doctor's consideration. Sometimes doctors just overlook possibilities.
I can put off luxuries. When I've got an infection or heart attack, I need medical assistance then, not after my next paycheck.
Also, basic medical care is expensive, at least in the US. It's not expensive if you don't get sick, but you can rapidly come down with something expensive. I wasn't actually budgeting for a heart attack, for example. Many drugs that you might wind up needing are quite expensive. Many people will have trouble affording another $100/week.
Sorry for the late response, but I had to do some thinking.
I'm still puzzled by why you listed things that are pretty easy in C++ to support the superiority of functional languages. You have cleaner syntax in functional languages when you're doing thing functional languages are good at, yes. C++ has worse syntax than Haskell, as well as most other languages, true. I haven't found this to be much of a problem.
Now, I gave that for loop (one line, although I'd write it as two for the ability to put a breakpoint in), because I remembered how to do that off the top of my head, instead of looking up the appropriate algorithm, which is an argument against C++ syntax, but I don't see that it's that much worse. I'm not averse to looking things up and getting them clear while programming, just not generally for Slashdot posts. Of course, if I wanted that sort of thing in my vocabulary and didn't have it already, I'd write a template function, and it would look a lot like the Haskell version in C++ syntax.
C++ is very good at allowing the programmer to build up a vocabulary, although not as good as Common Lisp (another of my favorite languages). In each case, you're stuck with the standard language syntax (or lack of it), and both C++ and Lisp have syntaxes that lots of people don't like. The C++ Standard Library does a lot of that, although not as much as some other language's libraries. Boost helps. It's possible to do amazing things with C++ syntax, and while it takes a good deal of expertise to do it right it requires much less to use it.
Throwing little bits of functionality into a function where they're easily missed is bad style in any language. That's where good naming comes in, along with other ways to write clear code. This is arguably more important in C++ than in most languages, of course.
I get your point about clumsy C++ syntax, but other than that I don't understand your arguments. If you want to program in a functional style in C++, that's not difficult. You're not going to get all the advantages of Haskell there, but I'm not convinced Haskell is real good at a lot of things C++ does well. If you were to show me something in Haskell that would be really difficult in C++, that would help.
FORTRAN, Lisp, and Pascal is a good basis to go on.
There are quite a few similarities between computer and human languages. It was years after I heard of Chomsky that I realized he wasn't a computer scientist. Anyway, the ability to use different computer languages effectively depends on being able to think about programming in different ways, so moving from one to another isn't necessarily trivial.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no such legal concept as hate speech in the US. Speech can be illegal when it's fraud, slander, or directly inciting imminent violence, but not because it's hateful.
I can call something hate speech, but that's an expression of my opinion and has no legal force.
Is it the same reason that unicorns dislike oranges? I've never heard any of my liberal friends and relatives support any of these. I've seen intense dislike of certain governments, and some sympathy for people engaged in overthrowing them, but that's true across the political spectrum.
Didn't work for PS3 owners who wanted to continue to run Linux on their PS3s, which was an advertised feature when they bought them. Not in the US, anyway; retailers in Europe frequently had to give partial refunds.
Apparently, admitting to a reality where other people have different needs, preferences, and financial situations is "to" difficult for you.
iPhones do some things very well, some less well. Moreover, if you're going to be using something constantly for years, spending less than a dollar a day to make the use more pleasant might be a wise thing to do.
What's the relevance of "the average household with credit card debt"? Wouldn't the credit card debt of the average household be more relevant?
Exactly who are you talking to?
The Obama quote is Obama saying that he was wrong. The Trump quote is Trump saying that nobody could have foreseen the problems that he failed to foresee. Different things entirely.
You're deplorable.
Lots of people who are against Clinton for that "deplorables" statement (without looking for context) seem to be just fine with Trump's many insults.
There are actually two emoluments clauses in effect. You seem to be talking about Article I, Section 9: "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United Stated] shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." There's also Article II, Section 1: "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor decreased during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."
There's actually nothing against Trump's receiving money from rich foreigners, as long as they aren't doing it as part of a foreign government, but if he's receiving any money from any government in the US for things like security at Trump Tower or Mar-a-Lago, he's violating the Constitution.
He's the frippin' President. If he made the mistake himself, it's his fault. If he appointed someone else who made the mistake, it's his fault for the appointment. If it's wrong, it's his fault. Harry Truman had it right: the buck stops in the Oval Office.
I'm not saying Presidents can't be allowed to make mistakes. I'm saying that this is ultimately Trump's mistake.
Were the funds misdirected or was the accounting bad?
Trump does things that sure look stupid, but they may have other explanations. His obvious lies might be to separate his supporters further from reality so they don't notice him screwing them over, for example. I'm not so sure about the incompetent ways he's done other things.
The primary goal of government is obviously not to maximize its revenues. However, it's useful to know what sorts of effects taxes will have on the economy and how much tax revenue is likely to change. I've seen enough stupid arguments that cutting taxes increases revenue, with "Laffer curve" used much like a holy invocation.
How were they simplified? You'd think the rules about dead groups would be easy enough to computerize.
You're assuming that misdiagnosis will be a thing of the past, and I don't see that. People are complicated. Some stuff is simple and definite, and doctors don't misdiagnose (e.g., finding staph aureus in a culture). Other things are more complicated, and no system is going to get everything right. The AI is going to misdiagnose, and the survivor's relatives will argue that the AI should have prescribed a particular test (whether or not its chance of eliminating a misdiagnosis is significant enough for it to be worthwhile).
Also, there's a difference between diagnosis and surgery. An AI might well take in symptoms, order tests, and then direct treatment. If it's a drug treatment, there's very little chances for humans to screw that up. If it's surgery, there's plenty of chances, since all sorts of things can suddenly go wrong.
That sounds wrong. Do you have example cases?
It's the doctor's stethoscope, and if it isn't up to snuff that's the doctor's problem. There's no reason why the doctor or the malpractice insurance company couldn't sue the stethoscope manufacturer for making bad stethoscopes.
Reminds me of a Raymond Smullyan murder mystery.
A, B, and C are traveling in the desert and rest at an oasis. B and C both hate A, so B puts poison in A's water bottle and C arranges that it will start leaking badly a little while after being filled. A fills his canteen and rides off on his camel. He finds his water bottle is empty and dies of thirst. Who killed him?
Did B kill him? A never touched the poison. Did C kill him? All C did was remove poison, not drinkable water.
Robots have killed people. I haven't seen any great outcry about it. I don't agree with you, and won't until I see some actual evidence.
I had laser surgery on my cornea when I was suffering from Anterior Basement Membrane Dystrophy, which seems to mean something like cornea delamination. Anyway, my right eye was taped shut, and I was asked to confirm that I needed the surgery for the left.
I'm not so sure about that. Humans will generally tend to think a disease is something they're already familiar with. Given hoofbeats, they look for horses. An AI can be programmed with a very large amount of data, which will generally have good information on outliers, so it might be better at spotting the occasional zebra.
(This depends on the doctor, of course. There are places where doctors will be prone to find zebras even when they aren't there.)
One thing an opaque deep-learning system could do is suggest possible diagnoses for the doctor's consideration. Sometimes doctors just overlook possibilities.
I can put off luxuries. When I've got an infection or heart attack, I need medical assistance then, not after my next paycheck.
Also, basic medical care is expensive, at least in the US. It's not expensive if you don't get sick, but you can rapidly come down with something expensive. I wasn't actually budgeting for a heart attack, for example. Many drugs that you might wind up needing are quite expensive. Many people will have trouble affording another $100/week.
Sorry for the late response, but I had to do some thinking.
I'm still puzzled by why you listed things that are pretty easy in C++ to support the superiority of functional languages. You have cleaner syntax in functional languages when you're doing thing functional languages are good at, yes. C++ has worse syntax than Haskell, as well as most other languages, true. I haven't found this to be much of a problem.
Now, I gave that for loop (one line, although I'd write it as two for the ability to put a breakpoint in), because I remembered how to do that off the top of my head, instead of looking up the appropriate algorithm, which is an argument against C++ syntax, but I don't see that it's that much worse. I'm not averse to looking things up and getting them clear while programming, just not generally for Slashdot posts. Of course, if I wanted that sort of thing in my vocabulary and didn't have it already, I'd write a template function, and it would look a lot like the Haskell version in C++ syntax.
C++ is very good at allowing the programmer to build up a vocabulary, although not as good as Common Lisp (another of my favorite languages). In each case, you're stuck with the standard language syntax (or lack of it), and both C++ and Lisp have syntaxes that lots of people don't like. The C++ Standard Library does a lot of that, although not as much as some other language's libraries. Boost helps. It's possible to do amazing things with C++ syntax, and while it takes a good deal of expertise to do it right it requires much less to use it.
Throwing little bits of functionality into a function where they're easily missed is bad style in any language. That's where good naming comes in, along with other ways to write clear code. This is arguably more important in C++ than in most languages, of course.
I get your point about clumsy C++ syntax, but other than that I don't understand your arguments. If you want to program in a functional style in C++, that's not difficult. You're not going to get all the advantages of Haskell there, but I'm not convinced Haskell is real good at a lot of things C++ does well. If you were to show me something in Haskell that would be really difficult in C++, that would help.
FORTRAN, Lisp, and Pascal is a good basis to go on.
There are quite a few similarities between computer and human languages. It was years after I heard of Chomsky that I realized he wasn't a computer scientist. Anyway, the ability to use different computer languages effectively depends on being able to think about programming in different ways, so moving from one to another isn't necessarily trivial.