Sure. You note when you happen to lose, and you walk away just before that. Unfortunately, it's a two-pass algorithm. Since casinos run on randomness (unless you're good enough at blackjack to be banned from playing it), your wins and losses are entirely unpredictable.
You can decide that you'll walk away when you're ahead, but expected waiting time to get ahead in a fair game is infinite (look up some random walk theory - this is a 1D random walk). There's also the fact that you can't wait for eternity before losing all your money.
I probably come close to breaking even over the long run.
Sure; that's how casinos keep you gambling more so they can keep getting your money and returning enough so you're not too far from breaking even. House percentages are not normally large.
Personally, when I think of betting, I start seeing expected value overlaid as if it were on a heads-up display, and I can compare it with what I'm betting. It takes a lot of fun out of it.
and the merchants have a payment provider willing to protect the merchant from price changes during the payment process.
The merchants can either eat the loss when it happens, or pay somewhat more than they'd have to eat in order to spread out the losses. Security from risk is a valuable commodity, and why we have insurance in the first place.
My wife once took a photo of a Cray-1 supercomputer with her original iPhone. As far as I could figure it, the 2000s phone had more power than the 1970s supercomputer.
Companies set requirements for jobs, not the public. It would appear that most software development is done by people with a college degree, not who went through apprenticeships. Therefore, the people making the business decisions, and who are at least somewhat responsible for their decisions, have decided that four-year degrees for software developers are a good thing.
If we stop all immigration, we have to do all the crap work that isn't automated away yet (such as marrying Trump or picking crops). Moreover, if most of the jobs require skill, we're going to require people with certain skills, not all of whom will be US citizens. And, of course, if jobs are in short supply, ending immigration is going to leave US citizens without enough jobs to go around.
On the off-chance that you're not being willfully stupid, unemployment benefits last for only a limited time. It's to the employer's benefit if they can get you to resign or they can fire you for cause, so lots of people get railroaded out of their beneifts.
Diagnose my illness (without a doctor as the interface)
AIs have been better than doctors at diagnosing illness for a long time, and you can go online for unofficial diagnoses. The only reason you can't get an official diagnosis from an AI is essentially union regulations and featherbedding.
Services that aren't paid for do constitute a gift. If a company doesn't pay taxes, why should it be allowed to recruit from an educated work force, or use public roadways, or anything like that?
Also, if you can't afford a family...fucking WAIT to have one till you can afford one.
Has it occurred to you that we all need the next generations? Somebody's going to have to do the work when you and I retire, and money isn't going to be worth anything when there's one nurse available to keep three hundred people's bottoms wiped. Many developed countries are having serious problems because of low fertility, and the ones who aren't typically use immigration to balance it.
People having families is vital to your interests. You really shouldn't discourage it.
Throughout the history of man, to date minus a few decades, it's been possible to make a living without any particular skills. Some people managed to scrape up what money and determination they needed to improve their lot, and that's good. Some tried and failed, for reasons essentially beyond their control. Now, you're expecting everyone to muster that money and determination and luck.
AI could certainly review and discuss your investments, probably with less bias than an investment advisor.
And, even assuming it was an Oracle product, a lot cheaper than the rates the last guy we talked to quoted to us. Also, it's highly unlikely to take our money to sit us in a conference room for two hours getting a hard sell for insurance we neither needed nor could afford, while ignoring the questions we'd actually asked about.
I could write a program that produced no output, and it would be at least as good, probably better, than the advisors I've dealt with.
Yes. Read the memo. It says that applications for some FISA warrants included information without revealing its source. I'd be surprised to find this isn't standard practice, given the lax oversight.
In other words, it doesn't matter whether anything Steele wrote was true, as long as it was biased in a direction you don't like? Law enforcement officials often get information from biased sources, and that's your entire reason to dismiss it.
I'm not going to go for statutes here. I'm going to go for the Constitution, specifically Article Two, Section One, Paragraph Seven: "[The President] shall not receive within that Period [term] any other Emoluments from the United States, or any of them". That's why people who want to obey the basic law of the land divest themselves of assets that deal with the government and put them in a blind trust.
As long as Trump is involved in his business holdings, any money received from the US government (or any state government) that goes to them is not only illegal, it's unconstitutional.
You have completely failed to explain why Comey leaked information on emails that turned out to be inconsequential but hurt Clinton's approval rating at a critical point. Comey was either a total incompetent, or preferred that Trump win.
You lack clue one about what's appropriate in an ongoing investigation. Law enforcement ALWAYS keeps information confidential while investigating, because you can't investigate properly when everybody knows what you're doing and what you'll do next.
Do you realize how easy it is to go through hundreds of pages of evidence and come up with some cherry-picked narrative? Particularly when it amounts to "the FBI didn't supply complete information on what it presented in warrant requests" and nothing worse?
And, since Nunes is a biased idiot, it is an opinion by a biased idiot. I wouldn't think that would be difficult to grasp.
The evidence can be released in proper time, which is not while a political hack is trying to subvert an ongoing investigation.
The FBI, I believe, has called it misleading. The FBI is not required to construct a counter-narrative involving an ongoing investigation. I think that you assuming they need to speaks for itself.
Nope. It shows that someone in the investigation provided some misleading information to get a FISA warrant, assuming the facts are as the memo says. The memo doesn't even say that the warrants were based on that information. You're going to have a very hard time convincing me that' being sloppy when asking for a warrant unheard of or represents any particular corruption.
"Liberal arts". I do not think that phrase means what you think it means. In fact, I'm pretty darn sure of it. The "liberal" in "liberal arts" has precisely nothing to do with politics.
That's why we need to fund education a lot more, assuming there's some reasoning with you people.
If this memo was just an opinion with cherry-picked examples they would not have fought so hard to keep it from release.
Take a deep breath. Then reread what you wrote. The Democrats fought hard to prevent a heavily slanted opinion with cherry-picked facts being release as an attempt to undermine the current FBI investigations. Isn't this what they would be expected to do? If they were fighting hard to prevent release of an unbiased report, that would be something else entirely.
Warrants filed under false pretenses and used to gain evidence are standard practice
FTFY.
Ever heard of parallel construction? The FBI gets evidence from a source it doesn't want to acknowledge or reveal or something, uses it as a basis for investigation, and then retcons some plausible reason why the investigation was started and the warrants were justified.
Now, I'm not at all fond of that process, but it appears to be what happens.
In other words, the FBI was using information received to launch an investigation.
Obviously, nothing Steele could say would be adequate for conviction. It could justify an investigation. (Almost any source can justify an investigation.) As far as the FISA warrants go, that's very likely to be business as usual. Nobody outside the government has a clear line on how that court works (and I think that's a good reason to disband the process).
So? That's not solid evidence that the DNC effectively lied to FISA. Every attack on the dossier I've seen is about where it came from, not what was in it. There's nothing inherently wrong with paying to collect facts and handing them over to law enforcement, even if the facts turn out to be wrong. That's for law enforcement to decide.
Slashdot Mirror
With a self-aware AI, exactly what the malware is depends on your point of view.
Sure. You note when you happen to lose, and you walk away just before that. Unfortunately, it's a two-pass algorithm. Since casinos run on randomness (unless you're good enough at blackjack to be banned from playing it), your wins and losses are entirely unpredictable.
You can decide that you'll walk away when you're ahead, but expected waiting time to get ahead in a fair game is infinite (look up some random walk theory - this is a 1D random walk). There's also the fact that you can't wait for eternity before losing all your money.
Sure; that's how casinos keep you gambling more so they can keep getting your money and returning enough so you're not too far from breaking even. House percentages are not normally large.
Personally, when I think of betting, I start seeing expected value overlaid as if it were on a heads-up display, and I can compare it with what I'm betting. It takes a lot of fun out of it.
The merchants can either eat the loss when it happens, or pay somewhat more than they'd have to eat in order to spread out the losses. Security from risk is a valuable commodity, and why we have insurance in the first place.
My wife once took a photo of a Cray-1 supercomputer with her original iPhone. As far as I could figure it, the 2000s phone had more power than the 1970s supercomputer.
Companies set requirements for jobs, not the public. It would appear that most software development is done by people with a college degree, not who went through apprenticeships. Therefore, the people making the business decisions, and who are at least somewhat responsible for their decisions, have decided that four-year degrees for software developers are a good thing.
If we stop all immigration, we have to do all the crap work that isn't automated away yet (such as marrying Trump or picking crops). Moreover, if most of the jobs require skill, we're going to require people with certain skills, not all of whom will be US citizens. And, of course, if jobs are in short supply, ending immigration is going to leave US citizens without enough jobs to go around.
On the off-chance that you're not being willfully stupid, unemployment benefits last for only a limited time. It's to the employer's benefit if they can get you to resign or they can fire you for cause, so lots of people get railroaded out of their beneifts.
AIs have been better than doctors at diagnosing illness for a long time, and you can go online for unofficial diagnoses. The only reason you can't get an official diagnosis from an AI is essentially union regulations and featherbedding.
Wrong article. You do get chutzpah points for quoting the Onion as if it were real, though.
Services that aren't paid for do constitute a gift. If a company doesn't pay taxes, why should it be allowed to recruit from an educated work force, or use public roadways, or anything like that?
Has it occurred to you that we all need the next generations? Somebody's going to have to do the work when you and I retire, and money isn't going to be worth anything when there's one nurse available to keep three hundred people's bottoms wiped. Many developed countries are having serious problems because of low fertility, and the ones who aren't typically use immigration to balance it.
People having families is vital to your interests. You really shouldn't discourage it.
Throughout the history of man, to date minus a few decades, it's been possible to make a living without any particular skills. Some people managed to scrape up what money and determination they needed to improve their lot, and that's good. Some tried and failed, for reasons essentially beyond their control. Now, you're expecting everyone to muster that money and determination and luck.
And, even assuming it was an Oracle product, a lot cheaper than the rates the last guy we talked to quoted to us. Also, it's highly unlikely to take our money to sit us in a conference room for two hours getting a hard sell for insurance we neither needed nor could afford, while ignoring the questions we'd actually asked about.
I could write a program that produced no output, and it would be at least as good, probably better, than the advisors I've dealt with.
Yes. Read the memo. It says that applications for some FISA warrants included information without revealing its source. I'd be surprised to find this isn't standard practice, given the lax oversight.
In other words, it doesn't matter whether anything Steele wrote was true, as long as it was biased in a direction you don't like? Law enforcement officials often get information from biased sources, and that's your entire reason to dismiss it.
I'm not going to go for statutes here. I'm going to go for the Constitution, specifically Article Two, Section One, Paragraph Seven: "[The President] shall not receive within that Period [term] any other Emoluments from the United States, or any of them". That's why people who want to obey the basic law of the land divest themselves of assets that deal with the government and put them in a blind trust.
As long as Trump is involved in his business holdings, any money received from the US government (or any state government) that goes to them is not only illegal, it's unconstitutional.
You have completely failed to explain why Comey leaked information on emails that turned out to be inconsequential but hurt Clinton's approval rating at a critical point. Comey was either a total incompetent, or preferred that Trump win.
You lack clue one about what's appropriate in an ongoing investigation. Law enforcement ALWAYS keeps information confidential while investigating, because you can't investigate properly when everybody knows what you're doing and what you'll do next.
Do you realize how easy it is to go through hundreds of pages of evidence and come up with some cherry-picked narrative? Particularly when it amounts to "the FBI didn't supply complete information on what it presented in warrant requests" and nothing worse?
And, since Nunes is a biased idiot, it is an opinion by a biased idiot. I wouldn't think that would be difficult to grasp.
The evidence can be released in proper time, which is not while a political hack is trying to subvert an ongoing investigation.
The FBI, I believe, has called it misleading. The FBI is not required to construct a counter-narrative involving an ongoing investigation. I think that you assuming they need to speaks for itself.
Nope. It shows that someone in the investigation provided some misleading information to get a FISA warrant, assuming the facts are as the memo says. The memo doesn't even say that the warrants were based on that information. You're going to have a very hard time convincing me that' being sloppy when asking for a warrant unheard of or represents any particular corruption.
"Liberal arts". I do not think that phrase means what you think it means. In fact, I'm pretty darn sure of it. The "liberal" in "liberal arts" has precisely nothing to do with politics.
That's why we need to fund education a lot more, assuming there's some reasoning with you people.
Take a deep breath. Then reread what you wrote. The Democrats fought hard to prevent a heavily slanted opinion with cherry-picked facts being release as an attempt to undermine the current FBI investigations. Isn't this what they would be expected to do? If they were fighting hard to prevent release of an unbiased report, that would be something else entirely.
FTFY.
Ever heard of parallel construction? The FBI gets evidence from a source it doesn't want to acknowledge or reveal or something, uses it as a basis for investigation, and then retcons some plausible reason why the investigation was started and the warrants were justified.
Now, I'm not at all fond of that process, but it appears to be what happens.
In other words, the FBI was using information received to launch an investigation.
Obviously, nothing Steele could say would be adequate for conviction. It could justify an investigation. (Almost any source can justify an investigation.) As far as the FISA warrants go, that's very likely to be business as usual. Nobody outside the government has a clear line on how that court works (and I think that's a good reason to disband the process).
So? That's not solid evidence that the DNC effectively lied to FISA. Every attack on the dossier I've seen is about where it came from, not what was in it. There's nothing inherently wrong with paying to collect facts and handing them over to law enforcement, even if the facts turn out to be wrong. That's for law enforcement to decide.