The interstate highway system is paid for by the federal government. $425 billion. Apparently the largest public works system since the pyramids. Why exactly Americans think of this as "a brilliant economic success" and state funded medicine as "socialist" the FSM only knows.
Well actually we do know. Because that's how lobbyists chose to frame them.
The auditorium for a stage theatre and for a cinema are pretty similar. In fact the range of viewing angles in a cinema is generally smaller than many stage theatres.
I'm trusting the human on that one (both in the identification and in determining the "cost" of each decision) more than software.
Then I think you're being unrealistic. I think it almost never happens that people make such a cost decision and decide which of two or more things to crash into.
Rather I think people avoid the most impending collision, which may then cause them to hit something else slightly later.
Where that later collision has a smaller cost, then of course the driver will do post-justification, flattering to themselves, that they made that choice to have the less costly collision.
Where that later collision has a greater cost, it'll just be put down to bad luck or bad judgement.
No robot or computer is any better than the programmer who programmed it.
A commonly said bit of nonsense.
Deep Blue beat the world's greatest chess player in a series of games. It was thus not only better at chess than it's programmers, it was better than any human.
Similarly Watson proved itself better than the best players of Jeopardy! ANd certainly better than it's programmers.
When you find a programmer(s) who can foresee and work around ALL possible problems, then come back and talk about a robot being a better driver than a human.
Programmers don't have to do that. That's not the way to make AI.
Computer drivers are already on a par with humans. Another couple of decades and there will be no comparison. The computer driver will be vastly better than any human.
Ever see fish swimming in a school, or birds in a flock? When these things have been modelled on computer it turns out it's down to a very few simple rules. No real intelligence required at all.
Likewise, for most of the time, human drivers are not even driving with their conscious mind. It's the training and experience in their subconcious minds that are doing the driving.
From what I can see, the autonomous cars are already on a par with human drivers. Another couple of decades and there will be no comparison. The computer drivers will be far safer.
It's not that long ago when it was commonly believed computers wouldn't be able to beat grandmaster chess players. Now the computer players are far superior.
However properly trained humans and programmed cars might work. But I can already see humans fighting programmed cars for control and causing all kinds of modes of failure
You know those big red buttons they have on heavy machinery. You hit them and everything stops. They have them on trams too. A guy walked out in front of a tram I was on, and rather than use the standard brakes, the driver hit the red button, and the tram did an emergency stop.
In the longer term I imagine that might be the level of control that a user of a driverless car might have. A big red panic button. It might not necessarily cause an immediate stop... doing so on a motorway/autobahn would be very dangerous. But it would put the car into a mode... possibly with a secondary computer... where it will know there is imminent danger, and it needs to slow down and stop as soon as is safe to do so, in a safe place and manner.
After all, as time goes on people's driving skills will become worse, and there will be a time when we don't expect people to learn to drive at all.
So what's a "so-called skeptic"? Somebody who *says* they don't believe in AGW but who secretly does, just doesn't want to pay for the alleged "fixes"?
That you didn't include this category with your list implies that you don't believe it exists. I on the other hand reckon it accounts for most of the people expressing doubts. They're more commonly called "deniers".
You're naive. What you are saying is equivalent to saying that the toilet cistern overflows because there is too much water going into it. Someone who actually understands the problem (a plumber) would point out it's because the ballcock is faulty.
The issue of obesity is not one of physics, nor of willpower. It's of understanding why some people's sense of saity works well, and other people's doesn't. Lots of people have theories, every diet fad puts forward a new one. But as yet no one knows for sure. It remains an area of science where there are huge unknowns.
Conservation of energy... In an isolated system. The body isn't an isolated system. You only consider the input to the system, you aren't considering the outputs.
And outside of the physics angle, it's unhelpful to look at it that way. Whilst for sure over-eating is the fundamental cause, the implication that it's a matter of conscious willpower is wrong. The difference between well proportioned and fat people is not willpower. Mostly those well proportioned people aren't even trying. They are just lucky to have a body and/or subconscious mind that doesn't prompt them with hunger feelings as often and/or jumps in earlier to tell them they've eaten enough. It's a random physical attribute such as the colour of ones hair, not something to be proud or ashamed of.
Maybe this research will better explain this difference, and maybe it won't. But the difference is there.
in 1975, when I was in High school. The thing that makes me suspicious is that the same people -- James Hansen in particular -- were the major alarmists for an ice age back then
Strange isn't it, that despite all the AGW deniers in the world, not a single one has put this "fact" on Wikipedia, with a citation.
Silly old Wikipedia seems to be of the opinion that James Hamsen was studying Venus right through the 1970s.
Clearly roc97007 must be entrusted as the world's fact keeper.
With such poor standards as white space and curly braces, write a pretty routine to clean it up. One to convert to your standard and one to convert back to theirs.
I come for the world of 6 upper charter names names for fields/columns. There naming conventions mean something becuase every is abbrivated. We keep or stnadards on single sheet of paper to so that could be followed.
Whoops! You forgot to run the pretty routine to convert your standard back to English.
Slashdot Mirror
Heck they understand that the roads were worth making even though there wasn't a profit on them.
Their thoughts are formed by what lobbyists tell them to think.
The interstate highway system is paid for by the federal government. $425 billion. Apparently the largest public works system since the pyramids. Why exactly Americans think of this as "a brilliant economic success" and state funded medicine as "socialist" the FSM only knows.
Well actually we do know. Because that's how lobbyists chose to frame them.
There really was no reason for the goblin caves or the dwarf kingdom of Erebor to be a bunch of platforms suspended the way they were.
But the orc's mines were much the same in LOTR, and those movies weren't made for 3D.
The two mediums excel in different ways. Stage excels at stories told by emotional contact between characters. Cinema excels at action and spectacle.
The auditorium for a stage theatre and for a cinema are pretty similar. In fact the range of viewing angles in a cinema is generally smaller than many stage theatres.
The parent says 3D isn't used as a storytelling device. And in an attempt to contradict him you use non-fictiaonal documentaries?
You underlined his point.
Likewise with IMAX. It's great for documentaries and experiences. Not much use for drama.
The beauty of vocabulary is the nuances of individual word choices, not the way some words have some overlap in meaning.
Enhance and add don't even have that much overlap. e.g. To add a room is very different from to enhance a room.
It does have a problem with nuts running around killing defenseless people.
And without guns, they tend to be nuts running around annoying people.
Another example of the gun problem America has today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20842120
As a practical matter, the wealthy and well-connected can always get the guns they want, regardless of a country's laws.
??? Certainly not in the UK. Where did you have in mind?
I'm trusting the human on that one (both in the identification and in determining the "cost" of each decision) more than software.
Then I think you're being unrealistic. I think it almost never happens that people make such a cost decision and decide which of two or more things to crash into.
Rather I think people avoid the most impending collision, which may then cause them to hit something else slightly later.
Where that later collision has a smaller cost, then of course the driver will do post-justification, flattering to themselves, that they made that choice to have the less costly collision.
Where that later collision has a greater cost, it'll just be put down to bad luck or bad judgement.
No robot or computer is any better than the programmer who programmed it.
A commonly said bit of nonsense.
Deep Blue beat the world's greatest chess player in a series of games. It was thus not only better at chess than it's programmers, it was better than any human.
Similarly Watson proved itself better than the best players of Jeopardy! ANd certainly better than it's programmers.
When you find a programmer(s) who can foresee and work around ALL possible problems, then come back and talk about a robot being a better driver than a human.
Programmers don't have to do that. That's not the way to make AI.
Computer drivers are already on a par with humans. Another couple of decades and there will be no comparison. The computer driver will be vastly better than any human.
I think your assumption is wrong. The quote says that hadn't been trained for that situation. Not that they forgot, were careless or complacent.
Ever see fish swimming in a school, or birds in a flock? When these things have been modelled on computer it turns out it's down to a very few simple rules. No real intelligence required at all.
Likewise, for most of the time, human drivers are not even driving with their conscious mind. It's the training and experience in their subconcious minds that are doing the driving.
From what I can see, the autonomous cars are already on a par with human drivers. Another couple of decades and there will be no comparison. The computer drivers will be far safer.
It's not that long ago when it was commonly believed computers wouldn't be able to beat grandmaster chess players. Now the computer players are far superior.
However properly trained humans and programmed cars might work. But I can already see humans fighting programmed cars for control and causing all kinds of modes of failure
You know those big red buttons they have on heavy machinery. You hit them and everything stops. They have them on trams too. A guy walked out in front of a tram I was on, and rather than use the standard brakes, the driver hit the red button, and the tram did an emergency stop.
In the longer term I imagine that might be the level of control that a user of a driverless car might have. A big red panic button. It might not necessarily cause an immediate stop... doing so on a motorway/autobahn would be very dangerous. But it would put the car into a mode... possibly with a secondary computer... where it will know there is imminent danger, and it needs to slow down and stop as soon as is safe to do so, in a safe place and manner.
After all, as time goes on people's driving skills will become worse, and there will be a time when we don't expect people to learn to drive at all.
I'm referring to the prototypes demoed in a Google video.
So what's a "so-called skeptic"? Somebody who *says* they don't believe in AGW but who secretly does, just doesn't want to pay for the alleged "fixes"?
That you didn't include this category with your list implies that you don't believe it exists. I on the other hand reckon it accounts for most of the people expressing doubts. They're more commonly called "deniers".
Except that the early versions of Android weren't iPhone competitors (copies), they were Blackberry competitors (copies).
You're naive. What you are saying is equivalent to saying that the toilet cistern overflows because there is too much water going into it. Someone who actually understands the problem (a plumber) would point out it's because the ballcock is faulty.
The issue of obesity is not one of physics, nor of willpower. It's of understanding why some people's sense of saity works well, and other people's doesn't. Lots of people have theories, every diet fad puts forward a new one. But as yet no one knows for sure. It remains an area of science where there are huge unknowns.
If indeed you are a perfectly proportioned human being, how much effort do you put into that? How much is your willpower tested?
Conservation of energy... In an isolated system. The body isn't an isolated system. You only consider the input to the system, you aren't considering the outputs.
And outside of the physics angle, it's unhelpful to look at it that way. Whilst for sure over-eating is the fundamental cause, the implication that it's a matter of conscious willpower is wrong. The difference between well proportioned and fat people is not willpower. Mostly those well proportioned people aren't even trying. They are just lucky to have a body and/or subconscious mind that doesn't prompt them with hunger feelings as often and/or jumps in earlier to tell them they've eaten enough. It's a random physical attribute such as the colour of ones hair, not something to be proud or ashamed of.
Maybe this research will better explain this difference, and maybe it won't. But the difference is there.
Yes, the only examples being given seem to be emulating exception handling (therefore working round a language deficiency).
Looks like exceptions.
And the reason is because it's in a language that doesn't support them. Or possibly speed?
Sounds like exceptions.
So we're talking about using goto to get round a language deficiency.
Yes I'm going with that because your claim is bullshit. And that's also the reason it doesn't and never will make it into Wikipedia.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=11
in 1975, when I was in High school. The thing that makes me suspicious is that the same people -- James Hansen in particular -- were the major alarmists for an ice age back then
Strange isn't it, that despite all the AGW deniers in the world, not a single one has put this "fact" on Wikipedia, with a citation.
Silly old Wikipedia seems to be of the opinion that James Hamsen was studying Venus right through the 1970s.
Clearly roc97007 must be entrusted as the world's fact keeper.
With such poor standards as white space and curly braces, write a pretty routine to clean it up. One to convert to your standard and one to convert back to theirs.
I come for the world of 6 upper charter names names for fields/columns. There naming conventions mean something becuase every is abbrivated. We keep or stnadards on single sheet of paper to so that could be followed.
Whoops! You forgot to run the pretty routine to convert your standard back to English.