Far easier and safer is to not hyper clean the surrounding environ. Small clue - in the 1800's there was no irradiation and no "hyper-sterile environment" and people died like crazy from disease (immune system failure) in far, far greater numbers than they do now. It's not so much cleaning up the food delivery chain as it is promoting that every surface in our environment needs to be swabbed constantly that's the problem.
You mean other than the direction of the money flow?
Also, your example is faulty. Refusing to pay for keeping FB does **not** mean you're "some amount richer". It means you have exactly the same amount you started with and don't have FB. If you try the pedant game of 'if you don't spend it you have more', no, no you don't.
Previous ages? You mean like just a couple years ago when I'd have arguments here against supposedly intelligent people who thought that the brain was exactly the same as a binary logic circuit?
I would argue that the chimp, dog and even reptile can do a lot more than pattern matching. All of the above have displayed planning, for instance. In other words: AI isn't even as smart as an iguana.
It certainly couldn't be men used as the control group, because the study is not about abuse by gender so that makes no sense.
Emphasis mine. It seems, however, the linked article directly disagrees with you:
a joint effort by human rights researchers, technical experts and thousands of online volunteers to build the world’s largest crowd-sourced dataset of online abuse against women
The study is exclusively about abuse towards a gender.
The study is not making any claims that would be validated by using a control group of male subjects.
True, which was exactly why men were excluded by conscious decision. You're dancing around the fact that it provides claims in a partial vacuum by selection bias (small group and hand picked as pols/journalists) and no base to compare against (other than a women's skin tone competition, ie: intersectionality).
Wow. Horrible, circular logic. The study was only about women because the study was only about women.
No, the study was about bad tweets and they focused on those directed at women, culling those directed at men. Both men and women are people and both sets tweet. But intersectionality dictates you only focus on the group you wish to promote/protect/whatever and ignore the rest because it will reduce the impact of your conclusions. This is a conscious decision.
indicate something about the state of the American economy and its deteriorating middle-class
As opposed to people simply being cheap (like me)? I can certainly afford to get canned goods at a grocery but I can get that $4.59 can of chicken pot pie stew (same brand - Campbell's - looking at one I got from the kitchen) for $1.59 at my local dollar store, so I do (a couple of dozen at a time). You're making a leap dictated by your bias.
Slashdot Mirror
"Nature is not an idiot" Nature is not intelligent in any form, brilliant or idiotic. Don't project attributes.
"it may be for a reason" It is. Nature doesn't scrap out an entire complicated process to 'try again'. That's part of that projection I mentioned.
No. Ice ages go back way before grasses.
Far easier and safer is to not hyper clean the surrounding environ. Small clue - in the 1800's there was no irradiation and no "hyper-sterile environment" and people died like crazy from disease (immune system failure) in far, far greater numbers than they do now. It's not so much cleaning up the food delivery chain as it is promoting that every surface in our environment needs to be swabbed constantly that's the problem.
Big exaggeration on the black walnuts. It's about 30 years.
You mean other than the direction of the money flow?
Also, your example is faulty. Refusing to pay for keeping FB does **not** mean you're "some amount richer". It means you have exactly the same amount you started with and don't have FB. If you try the pedant game of 'if you don't spend it you have more', no, no you don't.
You do understand a goddamn *script* from a friggin' game don't mean shit re real life, right?
Also implicit ones like "PROTIP".
Hell, I use Gimp. It's not experienced friendly either.
Not true. The loser doesn't get to play another game. Checkmating the loser allows that.
Emphasis mine. Yeah, convince the fruit fly you plan to feed to your spider it's not important. Pedantry cuts both directions.
Yeah, no. Rocks don't and can't "formulate an effective initial response" to any situation, novel or otherwise.
To be pedantic, it may 'discover' the cure, but it wouldn't know it.
Previous ages? You mean like just a couple years ago when I'd have arguments here against supposedly intelligent people who thought that the brain was exactly the same as a binary logic circuit?
I would argue that the chimp, dog and even reptile can do a lot more than pattern matching. All of the above have displayed planning, for instance. In other words: AI isn't even as smart as an iguana.
OK - all of the "Artificial Intelligence" you hear about in the news is really fancy pattern matching.
I'm curious. Name one thing at this level of complexity that was developed w/o definition.
"and do work today" Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Very funny today. Well done.
Dude/tte; my PC has a PS/2 port. What the hell are you talking about?
Emphasis mine. It seems, however, the linked article directly disagrees with you:
The study is exclusively about abuse towards a gender.
True, which was exactly why men were excluded by conscious decision. You're dancing around the fact that it provides claims in a partial vacuum by selection bias (small group and hand picked as pols/journalists) and no base to compare against (other than a women's skin tone competition, ie: intersectionality).
Wow. Horrible, circular logic. The study was only about women because the study was only about women.
No, the study was about bad tweets and they focused on those directed at women, culling those directed at men. Both men and women are people and both sets tweet. But intersectionality dictates you only focus on the group you wish to promote/protect/whatever and ignore the rest because it will reduce the impact of your conclusions. This is a conscious decision.
As opposed to people simply being cheap (like me)? I can certainly afford to get canned goods at a grocery but I can get that $4.59 can of chicken pot pie stew (same brand - Campbell's - looking at one I got from the kitchen) for $1.59 at my local dollar store, so I do (a couple of dozen at a time). You're making a leap dictated by your bias.
Context. The discussion is about stores. Take that leap of faith and assume it's a store.
What a racist remark.
So AC, where you live, FedEx and USPS deliver using homeless people? Right.
"Most of the time a letter you sent me ends up in someone elseâ(TM)s box."