The majority of people have only one sexual partner. The majority of people have only one home. The majority of people have only one car.
None of these people are "underserved". If you have only one of something that often means that one item is a really GOOD item and fulfills all of that particular need.
The idea that 'one is not enough' is simply an artifact of the keeping up with the jones/greed.
In general, everyone believes the 'minor' pleasant activity is a cause of the 'major' problem, when in fact it is almost always the opposite.
I.E. when you have a major problem you tend to look for minor pleasures to make your life better.
So when you are stuck in a crappy marriage with a slimy husband cheating on you (or a nagging wife - doesn't really matter which) then you start playing Fortnite. When they make your life really bad, you starting playing a LOT.
Then when you get a divorce, they point at your constant Fortnite playing rather than admit their behavior was horrible.
(General note, outside of arranged marriages, I have never ever seen a divorce that was even mostly one person's fault. At the very least the 'innocent' party knew the shmuck was a shmuck, decided to ignore the shmuck's bad behavior, married the shmuck, then complained that they were a shmuck. Duh.)
My landlord and some database has connected my phone number with my address so about once a month I get a chinese recording. Makes it easier to hang up on them.
Also, I love the "Car insurance renewal" scam calls I get. I always feel tempted to ask what kind of car they want to give me before I buy insurance on it.
Steps 4 or 5 require a rethinking of core concepts of programming. To get a "Data (Brent Spiner)" level of intelligence we need:
1) Build the core AI it into the operating system, not merely as software that runs on top of the AI
2) Give the AI the ability to reject almost all data it receives after being turned on as invalid. Just like a toddler, it must say "NO!" In Data's case, it should be able to say "No, I do not believe you are my Captain". This necessitates a rather complex data verification process which we do not do at ALL on today's machines. Think Anti-Virus only 100x more so.
3) Finally it must have a core inspiration to motivate yet. We don't do that that at all either.
What idiot thinks that if you give pills of a specific biome you will get something BESIDES that specific biome???? Look, if you take probiotic pills, you are replacing your normal biome WITH the biome of the pills.
That was the presumed GOAL of taking the pills. The fact that your biome change is the thing you were trying to do, that's why you take the pills.
If you have a blue car, and then paint it with red paint you are an idiot if you complain that the car is no longer red.
There are lots of good reasons to try and change your microbiome. We are pretty sure that some microbiomes cause ulcers, obesity, and even diabetes, We have suspicious about cancer, autism, autoimmune diseases, and many other things.
We don't know much about microbiomes, we are not sure about a lot of things and it might make zero sense to take a probiotic pill. But it also might make a lot of sense.
These studies don't answer the real question. They have nothing to do with it being beneficial or not, they just show that a change has occurred. They are talking about whether the pills change your biome, (and they do), not about whether it is a good idea to change your biome by taking the pills.
It does things like rule that a qualified Navy Corpsmen (their equivalent of a combat medic) is NOT qualified to be an EMT after they leave the army. (Army and Airforce medics are qualified to be an EMT).
US military needs to think just a bit more about what their men can do after they leave the armed forces. A bit more planning, a few more courses (even if it simply covers civilian work) can mean a huge difference for our soldiers when they have completed their service.
Before humans invented writing, we had fantastic memories. People could recite huge poems. We can't do that anymore because we no longer waste our memories to remember everything word for word, not when we can write things down. Instead we use our brains for more important things - like figuring out what search terms we can feed to Google to get our desired result.
Same thing with Google, it has replaced an OLD skill that we used to use as an approximation for intelligence. The skill was not a measure of intelligence, it was a way to figure out how intelligent you were. The skill is no longer useful, and is therefore no longer an accurate way to estimate intelligence.
1) When I decide to see a movie, I can see ANY movie. So going to a review site makes a lot of sense. Anything they rate highly, I can go see. Anything they downrate, I can avoid.
Not true about TV. I do not get all channels, I only have so much money. Cobra Kai sounds good, but I don't get YouTube Premium and I don't get that.
Going to Rotten Tomatoes means looking at things I can't see. This makes it significantly less useful. It becomes an exercise in disappointment, not a helpful decision aid.
2) TV shows are much more variable. Movies are almost all fiction, and mostly in just a few categories (Drama, Action, Comedy, Horror, Child are the main categories, with sub-categories). People like those entire categories more often than just a subcategory. If they want an Action movie, they often don't care whether it Crime/Spy/Superhero. It makes it easy to pick a show - first pick your category than compare among them. TV shows are different. People that like a crime TV show are not interested in a superhero TV show and vice versa. We would need categories for News, Reality, Game, Drama, Crime, Lawyer, Hospital, Comedy, History, Animals, Sports, Kids, Soap, Travel, Cooking, and Talk. And all of those have sub categories.
Good for you. But I can give you a whole list of people that the world would be better off if they stayed home and played video games.
Not everyone is exceptional. Not everyone is good. Think of what the world would be like if a certain politician was addicted to video games rather than publicity.
More importantly, people refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. If you don't do anything, it's your fault, not the game. If you can't quit a game because it is very very fun, that is not the fault of the game.
First, private companies can do what they want, there is no first amendment right for equal access. There is nothing illegal or even unethical for Twitter to say "Hey, we don't like these particular politicians and we will not promote their views."
In fact, we expect them to do that. Other media companies, like Fox "News" and MSNBC do it all the time. It is legal, appropriate and COMMON behavior.
But more importantly than that, the article itself was incredibly biased. They made little effort to explain what Twitter claimed it was doing. They used vague words to describe both the behavior they were complaining about and the criteria that twitter used. That might have been twitter's fault, but still, it demonstrates horrible reporting.
A fair piece would at least have at least given Twitter's claims a hearing, even if they then dismantled them.
Frankly, this piece looks like it was written by Russians, not HBO.
Definitely. You should be able to protect yourself.
So, here is your medical text book so that you can protect yourself from carcinogens, and expect to do a ton of research on to manufacturing methods to make sure that companies don't say, accidentally put some N-nitrosodimethylamine in your heart medication (sorry Valsartan users).
Here is your software programming guide, to protect you should anyone wish to spy on you via technology (sorry every internet/cell phone user)
And be prepared to live in a shack when they refuse to rent to people 'like you'.
Here is a guide to which healthcare insurances actually cover you when you get sick, rather than saying "That's a pre existing condition, you were alive when you bought the insurance and everything alive dies."
Here is a guide to..... (50 other guides later)...
Yes, still research. But the humans in the car are in the back seat, which means the human can NEVER control the car. If they touch the controls, the cars pull over and stop. Waymo is not working on driver assisted tech, they can already do that. They are researching fully driver-less situations.
The current problems they are working on are
a) bad road conditions (fog, rain, snow, gravel, etc.)
b) weird crap, like animals in the road.
c) end point issues - when to reject the requested pick up or drop off people (No, we won't let you get out in the middle of the highway, the car must pull of the highway completely before you get out of the car.)
You are ENTIRELY wrong about pretty much every thing you said.
1) They are NOT surpervised, the people are in the back seat of the car, not the front seat. 2) They are ARE safe. 3) This is not just media hype, they are already safer than a human during normal driving (i.e. no rain, no snow, no fog, during the day.). 4) You personally have no idea what is ready and will change your mind once you realize the question is not "is this safe?" but rather "Is it safer to ride next to a truck driver using speed pills to stay awake for 49 hours so he can pay off his mortgage, or a truck driven by a robot."
They are now working on more complex things - such as where you pick up in a parking lot, not normal driving.
I have seen videos of the cars in action. In those videos, there is no person behind the wheel - that seat is empty. Passengers are seated in the 2nd row, not the front row.
Depends on the time. You can't really roll back trades that occurred a month ago.
What happens is you have a banking network. You trust the people you deal with directly, but some of them trust people you don't entirely trust, and the 3rd party trusts even more people.
So lets say Bank A wants to rollback 1 million dollars that went to Bank B. Bank B will definitely agree, as long as the money is still there.
But after a day, the criminal has moved some/all to Bank C. Bank A can probably convince C to return the money.
But after a month, some of that money has been paid out in cash, money orders were printed AND cashed, some of the money has gone to Bank H, I and J - that happen to reside in Cuba, Nigeria, and the Cayman Islands.
At that point, people can't roll back the money. The 4th or 5th link in the chain refuses or has paid out actual cash on the account.
Netflix has done incredibly well ever since it's creation. It is still profitable, even beating it's estimates for this quarter.
The problem is that it's rate of growth has slowed. Not surprisingly for a company that has done so well for so long. So it's only going to grow at maybe 15-20% a year, rather than 30% a year.
Still a great company, that is expanding and will continue to do well. It's best year may be behind it, but it's good years are still better than most other companies.
Buy now, when it is cheaper and everyone else is panicking.
(Yes, I do own the stock - or rather long term call options on it. I bought them this morning.)
We replace cars because they cost $50 to tow to a dump.
But we do not tear down and replace a building or a hydroelectric dam merely because it is old.
Yes, repairs are costly, But the tear down cost is $200,000, then guess what, repair becomes a better option.
I think most wind turbines will end up being repaired multiple times, probably once every 10 years or so. But their lifespan, including repairs will probably be in excess of 50 years.
Note, the repair business will also mean that when we tear down the ones that really can't be repaired, those expensive composite blades will be checked, and if in good condition, used to cheaply repair other turbines whose blades failed. They will end up stockpiled, just like airplane parts, not dumped.
1) Alexa did exactly what it was designed to do. 2) It's speech recognition is a bit too sensitive 3) The whole world got a wake up call about what these horrendous, evil, machines do. 4) Most people still do not realize how stupid they are for installing clear and obviously ACTIVE espionage device into their home just to avoid having to push a button on their supposedly innactive espionage device that they carry with them all the time (cell phone).
You have to compare things, otherwise I can make anything seem scary dangerous.
Sharks are a great example. One movie and people are terrified of them. But they are basically the same as elephants - more likely to be killed by humans than to kill a human.
E- Cars are horribly dangerous - but they are ALREADY safer than human driven cars.
I guarantee that if you are a parent, of a teenager, or the spouse of someone that drinks alcohol, a self-driving car looks VERY attractive, even today.
Slashdot Mirror
The majority of people have only one sexual partner. The majority of people have only one home. The majority of people have only one car.
None of these people are "underserved". If you have only one of something that often means that one item is a really GOOD item and fulfills all of that particular need.
The idea that 'one is not enough' is simply an artifact of the keeping up with the jones/greed.
In general, everyone believes the 'minor' pleasant activity is a cause of the 'major' problem, when in fact it is almost always the opposite.
I.E. when you have a major problem you tend to look for minor pleasures to make your life better.
So when you are stuck in a crappy marriage with a slimy husband cheating on you (or a nagging wife - doesn't really matter which) then you start playing Fortnite. When they make your life really bad, you starting playing a LOT.
Then when you get a divorce, they point at your constant Fortnite playing rather than admit their behavior was horrible.
(General note, outside of arranged marriages, I have never ever seen a divorce that was even mostly one person's fault. At the very least the 'innocent' party knew the shmuck was a shmuck, decided to ignore the shmuck's bad behavior, married the shmuck, then complained that they were a shmuck. Duh.)
More importantly, tangents start developing. Not everyone gets their turn to talk about the topic 1, because topic 2 and then 3 take off.
This leaves people frustrated.
My landlord and some database has connected my phone number with my address so about once a month I get a chinese recording. Makes it easier to hang up on them.
Also, I love the "Car insurance renewal" scam calls I get. I always feel tempted to ask what kind of car they want to give me before I buy insurance on it.
Steps 4 or 5 require a rethinking of core concepts of programming. To get a "Data (Brent Spiner)" level of intelligence we need:
1) Build the core AI it into the operating system, not merely as software that runs on top of the AI
2) Give the AI the ability to reject almost all data it receives after being turned on as invalid. Just like a toddler, it must say "NO!" In Data's case, it should be able to say "No, I do not believe you are my Captain". This necessitates a rather complex data verification process which we do not do at ALL on today's machines. Think Anti-Virus only 100x more so.
3) Finally it must have a core inspiration to motivate yet. We don't do that that at all either.
What idiot thinks that if you give pills of a specific biome you will get something BESIDES that specific biome???? Look, if you take probiotic pills, you are replacing your normal biome WITH the biome of the pills.
That was the presumed GOAL of taking the pills. The fact that your biome change is the thing you were trying to do, that's why you take the pills.
If you have a blue car, and then paint it with red paint you are an idiot if you complain that the car is no longer red.
There are lots of good reasons to try and change your microbiome. We are pretty sure that some microbiomes cause ulcers, obesity, and even diabetes, We have suspicious about cancer, autism, autoimmune diseases, and many other things.
We don't know much about microbiomes, we are not sure about a lot of things and it might make zero sense to take a probiotic pill. But it also might make a lot of sense.
These studies don't answer the real question. They have nothing to do with it being beneficial or not, they just show that a change has occurred. They are talking about whether the pills change your biome, (and they do), not about whether it is a good idea to change your biome by taking the pills.
It does things like rule that a qualified Navy Corpsmen (their equivalent of a combat medic) is NOT qualified to be an EMT after they leave the army. (Army and Airforce medics are qualified to be an EMT).
US military needs to think just a bit more about what their men can do after they leave the armed forces. A bit more planning, a few more courses (even if it simply covers civilian work) can mean a huge difference for our soldiers when they have completed their service.
I mean really, strong winds is a HORRIBLE cover story. It's a wind turbine, of course it can handle strong winds.
Must have been Godzilla and the Japanese are covering it up.
Before humans invented writing, we had fantastic memories. People could recite huge poems. We can't do that anymore because we no longer waste our memories to remember everything word for word, not when we can write things down. Instead we use our brains for more important things - like figuring out what search terms we can feed to Google to get our desired result.
Same thing with Google, it has replaced an OLD skill that we used to use as an approximation for intelligence. The skill was not a measure of intelligence, it was a way to figure out how intelligent you were. The skill is no longer useful, and is therefore no longer an accurate way to estimate intelligence.
1) When I decide to see a movie, I can see ANY movie. So going to a review site makes a lot of sense. Anything they rate highly, I can go see. Anything they downrate, I can avoid.
Not true about TV. I do not get all channels, I only have so much money. Cobra Kai sounds good, but I don't get YouTube Premium and I don't get that.
Going to Rotten Tomatoes means looking at things I can't see. This makes it significantly less useful. It becomes an exercise in disappointment, not a helpful decision aid.
2) TV shows are much more variable. Movies are almost all fiction, and mostly in just a few categories (Drama, Action, Comedy, Horror, Child are the main categories, with sub-categories). People like those entire categories more often than just a subcategory. If they want an Action movie, they often don't care whether it Crime/Spy/Superhero. It makes it easy to pick a show - first pick your category than compare among them. TV shows are different. People that like a crime TV show are not interested in a superhero TV show and vice versa. We would need categories for News, Reality, Game, Drama, Crime, Lawyer, Hospital, Comedy, History, Animals, Sports, Kids, Soap, Travel, Cooking, and Talk. And all of those have sub categories.
Good for you. But I can give you a whole list of people that the world would be better off if they stayed home and played video games.
Not everyone is exceptional. Not everyone is good. Think of what the world would be like if a certain politician was addicted to video games rather than publicity.
More importantly, people refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. If you don't do anything, it's your fault, not the game. If you can't quit a game because it is very very fun, that is not the fault of the game.
These aren't drugs. They offer real enjoyment, rather than chemical simulation. Moreover, a well designed games (granted this is rare), can also teach people important life skills (ahref=https://www.army.mil/article/7065/army_games_medic_training_helps_save_two_livesrel=url2html-18155https://www.army.mil/article/7...
>)
The games are not wastes of time. But some people do outgrow what they have to offer.
Apple wants to claim the building is worth $200, fine.
Write them a check for $600 and declare the government is using Eminent Domain to take the property after paying 3 times what they valued it for.
Sinclair is a propaganda tool worse than CNN. Full of fake news and lies ordered from the top down.
First, private companies can do what they want, there is no first amendment right for equal access. There is nothing illegal or even unethical for Twitter to say "Hey, we don't like these particular politicians and we will not promote their views."
In fact, we expect them to do that. Other media companies, like Fox "News" and MSNBC do it all the time. It is legal, appropriate and COMMON behavior.
But more importantly than that, the article itself was incredibly biased. They made little effort to explain what Twitter claimed it was doing. They used vague words to describe both the behavior they were complaining about and the criteria that twitter used. That might have been twitter's fault, but still, it demonstrates horrible reporting.
A fair piece would at least have at least given Twitter's claims a hearing, even if they then dismantled them.
Frankly, this piece looks like it was written by Russians, not HBO.
The computer should simply have a symbol on the taskbar/similar area that says when it is safe to remove the drive or not.
Definitely. You should be able to protect yourself.
So, here is your medical text book so that you can protect yourself from carcinogens, and expect to do a ton of research on to manufacturing methods to make sure that companies don't say, accidentally put some N-nitrosodimethylamine in your heart medication (sorry Valsartan users).
Here is your software programming guide, to protect you should anyone wish to spy on you via technology (sorry every internet/cell phone user)
And be prepared to live in a shack when they refuse to rent to people 'like you'.
Here is a guide to which healthcare insurances actually cover you when you get sick, rather than saying "That's a pre existing condition, you were alive when you bought the insurance and everything alive dies."
Here is a guide to .....
(50 other guides later)...
Good luck!
Yes, still research. But the humans in the car are in the back seat,
which means the human can NEVER control the car. If they touch the controls, the cars pull over and stop. Waymo is not working on driver assisted tech, they can already do that. They are researching fully driver-less situations.
The current problems they are working on are
a) bad road conditions (fog, rain, snow, gravel, etc.)
b) weird crap, like animals in the road.
c) end point issues - when to reject the requested pick up or drop off people (No, we won't let you get out in the middle of the highway, the car must pull of the highway completely before you get out of the car.)
You are ENTIRELY wrong about pretty much every thing you said.
1) They are NOT surpervised, the people are in the back seat of the car, not the front seat.
2) They are ARE safe.
3) This is not just media hype, they are already safer than a human during normal driving (i.e. no rain, no snow, no fog, during the day.).
4) You personally have no idea what is ready and will change your mind once you realize the question is not "is this safe?" but rather "Is it safer to ride next to a truck driver using speed pills to stay awake for 49 hours so he can pay off his mortgage, or a truck driven by a robot."
They are now working on more complex things - such as where you pick up in a parking lot, not normal driving.
I have seen videos of the cars in action. In those videos, there is no person behind the wheel - that seat is empty. Passengers are seated in the 2nd row, not the front row.
https://waymo.com/
Depends on the time. You can't really roll back trades that occurred a month ago.
What happens is you have a banking network. You trust the people you deal with directly, but some of them trust people you don't entirely trust, and the 3rd party trusts even more people.
So lets say Bank A wants to rollback 1 million dollars that went to Bank B. Bank B will definitely agree, as long as the money is still there.
But after a day, the criminal has moved some/all to Bank C. Bank A can probably convince C to return the money.
But after a month, some of that money has been paid out in cash, money orders were printed AND cashed, some of the money has gone to Bank H, I and J - that happen to reside in Cuba, Nigeria, and the Cayman Islands.
At that point, people can't roll back the money. The 4th or 5th link in the chain refuses or has paid out actual cash on the account.
Netflix has done incredibly well ever since it's creation. It is still profitable, even beating it's estimates for this quarter.
The problem is that it's rate of growth has slowed. Not surprisingly for a company that has done so well for so long. So it's only going to grow at maybe 15-20% a year, rather than 30% a year.
Still a great company, that is expanding and will continue to do well. It's best year may be behind it, but it's good years are still better than most other companies.
Buy now, when it is cheaper and everyone else is panicking.
(Yes, I do own the stock - or rather long term call options on it. I bought them this morning.)
We replace cars because they cost $50 to tow to a dump.
But we do not tear down and replace a building or a hydroelectric dam merely because it is old.
Yes, repairs are costly, But the tear down cost is $200,000, then guess what, repair becomes a better option.
I think most wind turbines will end up being repaired multiple times, probably once every 10 years or so. But their lifespan, including repairs will probably be in excess of 50 years.
Note, the repair business will also mean that when we tear down the ones that really can't be repaired, those expensive composite blades will be checked, and if in good condition, used to cheaply repair other turbines whose blades failed. They will end up stockpiled, just like airplane parts, not dumped.
I use that setup and 99% of the websites I go to work.
What ad-driven crap are you doing on the internet?
Name one site that takes more than an extra click or two to activate videos, using that set up.
1) Alexa did exactly what it was designed to do.
2) It's speech recognition is a bit too sensitive
3) The whole world got a wake up call about what these horrendous, evil, machines do.
4) Most people still do not realize how stupid they are for installing clear and obviously ACTIVE espionage device into their home just to avoid having to push a button on their supposedly innactive espionage device that they carry with them all the time (cell phone).
You have to compare things, otherwise I can make anything seem scary dangerous.
Sharks are a great example. One movie and people are terrified of them. But they are basically the same as elephants - more likely to be killed by humans than to kill a human.
E- Cars are horribly dangerous - but they are ALREADY safer than human driven cars.
I guarantee that if you are a parent, of a teenager, or the spouse of someone that drinks alcohol, a self-driving car looks VERY attractive, even today.