The A.I. Artificial Intelligence page consistently uses "Super-Toys", while the main article, Supertoys Last All Summer Long consistently goes the other direction.
Google: "Super-Toys" Last All Summer Long -"supertoys" = 66,800 results
Google: "SuperToys" Last All Summer Long -"super-toys" = 70,300 results
Squeaker. By the Law of Electoral College, I think the first item wins.
As this book goes to print in 2012, author Brian Aldiss tells me that his entire production of fiction is to be republished.
And this:
How many times can films destroy books?...
"The risk was patent," he allowed, "because Stanley gave me a beautiful illustrated copy of Pinocchio, and he always wanted Pinocchio to be the Blue Fairy. When I heard those dreadful words, the Blue Fairy, I really started throwing up. I couldn't take this.
"But all right, I went to work with him. At ten o'clock they'd come and collect me, we'd find a pub, we'd go over this with lots of coffee, lots of Marlboros, and sometimes we seemed to be getting somewhere. But always he was determined that David the super toy should cease to be a fairy and become a real boy, while I hoped that between us we could have created a modern myth. That this robot child could exist in modern society and it would be of enormous interest.
"But this didn't interest Kubrick one bit. Do you know, he spent two years thinking about my short story? Perhaps he'd lost some of his earlier genius."
When Kubrick died it was taken over by Spielberg, and was out of reach of its originator, who now said to me wistfully, "Super-Toys Last All Summer Long is a nice title. It's poetic, it sounds nice. And what will the audience thing when winter comes?"
My bold & paragraph breaks.
I think Aldiss would have wanted his views known, so I quoted a bit more than normal given the occasion.
As copyright now works—de facto—everyone who reads the above quotation is now obligated to buy Alex Hamilton's fine book—that's how it now works, right?
I'm only tracked by the large number of privacy-guard and productivity extensions installed into Firefox running under a fringe open source OS. I've checked before, it's a highly unique fingerprint.
Yeah, so I'm sure there are some companies out there tracking me as the man with seven middle fingers, all extended in the direction of the company tracking me.
Thus, I only ever see advertising for the Armsel Striker.
Haha. Just kidding. Though I might actually click through if they did take a hint.
Might downloading a 50-cent coupon for Cheerios cost you legal rights?
General Mills, the maker of cereals like Cheerios and Chex as well as brands like Bisquick and Betty Crocker, has quietly added language to its website to alert consumers that they give up their right to sue the company if they download coupons, "join" it in online communities like Facebook, enter a company-sponsored sweepstakes or contest or interact with it in a variety of other ways.
Instead, anyone who has received anything that could be construed as a benefit and who then has a dispute with the company over its products will have to use informal negotiation via email or go through arbitration to seek relief, according to the new terms posted on its site.
It's not the first time we've been taxed unreasonably for touching a toe to the yellow brick road, Dorothy.
Flour produced at a General Mills Inc plant in Kansas City, Missouri, was probably the source of an E. coli outbreak that has sickened 38 people across 20 states, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Wednesday.
Ten people have been hospitalized in the outbreak, the CDC said.
Though for our own safety, we really have to stop meeting like this.
The guys that had their TV's for 2 weeks or so are in a good position. Just take it back to the retailer.
I used to have a special T-shirt I called my "watching other people work" shirt.
It's also useful for watching other people "just" hump their giant TVs back to the box store way out at the box store urban fringe.
Of course, those who deliberately situate themselves smack dab in the middle of boxurbia have nothing else planned for Saturday in any case. For this class of people, random "undo" errands are apparently features, not bugs.
He was able to achieve this thanks to two novel advances: non-Foster circuits and internal matching. Non-Foster circuits are active, transistorized circuits that effectively create capacitors and inductors that are negatively charged, meaning the reactance is inverted to that of conventional capacitors and inductors. Coupling this technique with internal matching—embedding the antenna and circuit into one structure—allowed the electrically small antenna to achieve a broader bandwidth, while not sacrificing efficiency. An electrically small antenna is one in which the largest dimension of the structure is less than one-tenth of a wavelength. Most electrically small antennas have less than 1 percent efficiency, but Church was able to achieve an efficiency of 85 percent.
"We can't make you do anything, but we can make you wish you had." – Army saying
– Stephen E. Ambrose
Unfortunately, our justice system routinely falls far short of this mark when dealing with corporations.
For Microsoft, the jump to Windows 10 represented a one-time only change of business models.
And even as the legal dust settles, we didn't make them wish they hadn't done what they done.
Why can't corporations also be lowly worms under the law?
____
JUDGE Who said that? Who the fuck said that? Who's the slimy little communist shit twinkle-toed cocksucker down here, who just signed his own death warrant? Nobody, huh?! The fairy fucking godmother said it! Out-fucking-standing! I will P.T. you all until you fucking die! I'll P.T. you until your assholes are sucking buttermilk.
Judge grabs Poettering by the shirt.
JUDGE Was it you, you scroungy little fuck, huh?!
POETTERING Sir, no, sir!
JUDGE You little piece of shit! You look like a fucking worm! I'll bet it was you!
POETTERING Sir, no, sir!
MICROSOFT Sir, I said it, sir! Sergeant steps up to Microsoft.
JUDGE Well... no shit. What have we got here, a fucking comedian? Private Microsoft? I admire your honesty. Hell, I like you. You can come over to my house and fuck my sister.
Judge punches Microsoft in the tenders. Microsoft sags to his knees.
JUDGE You little scumbag! I've got your name! I've got your ass! You will not laugh! You will not cry! You will learn by the numbers. I will teach you. Now get up! Get on your feet! You had best unfuck yourself or I will unscrew your head and shit down your neck!
MICROSOFT Sir, yes, sir!
JUDGE Private Microsoft, why did you join my beloved Private Sector?
MICROSOFT Sir, to kill, sir!
JUDGE So you're a killer!
MICROSOFT Sir, yes, sir!
JUDGE Let me see your war face!
MICROSOFT Sir?
JUDGE You've got a war face? Aaaaaaaagh! That's a war face. Now let me see your war face!
MICROSOFT Aaaaaaaagh!
JUDGE Bullshit! You didn't convince me! Let me see your real war face!
(I know, I know, the merchant pays for it and passes that along to me in the form of higher prices, but as long as I don't get a discount for using a different payment method, it works out to the same thing and I'd be stupid not to use the credit card)
It only works out to the same thing in a shittier universe, in which the CC companies are rewarded for mandating perverse incentives to their own advantage.
if (explicit_extortion || implicit_extortion) {
buy_elsewhere();
}
else {
if (spiff_available) {
pocket_spiff();
}
else
there_is_always_cash();
}
In Alan Alda's book If I Understood You, Would I Have This Look on My Face? (2017), he does an experiment in teaching engineering students theatrical improvisation techniques (specifically, exercises advocated by Viola Spolin).
What he observes about these students giving (often stilted) talks to each other (especially in the before condition) is that they barely understand each other's technical jargon.
These are students of mostly the same age and generation, attending the same school, talking mostly the same courses, but focusing on different projects.
I wouldn't call myself a polymath, but I've acquired a way to handle people talking vaguely over my head across a wide range of subject matters (much of the humanities and most of STEM). It's based on years and years of rarely letting an unfamiliar reference pass across my screen without a Google search, a wide range of reading interests, and a facility for careful listening and active questioning.
If a wonk has difficulty conversing with me, he/she probably has difficulty talking to his/her colleague down the hall. At that point, you just need to know not to take it personally.
I'd rather do another thousand Google searches than spend a week on the Queen of Norwalk steaming around some mosquito-infested tropical coastline.
The only channel I need is the channel I'm presently watching.
That's why I generally buy just one or two flavours of potato chips at a time. If I had ten flavours in the house, I'd be hard pressed to eat anything else.
Spend hours, maybe dozens, maybe hundreds of hours establishing your data on a particular platform, have them insert a sentence in the "TOS" some random month, and "If you don't like it, don't use it!"
You never know who has only been online for just a month or few, otherwise we could cut to the chase and simply name every last one one of them after their departure lounge orifice.
One has to be a staggeringly malignant blockhead to avoid becoming sensitised to this retroactive ass bite in less time than you can google the newest Snapchat replacement (I'm not actually intending to date myself here, but there's an egg timer risk).
I have a FreeNAS 11 crash box for trying out various things, but I didn't progress very far with the media server thing.
My remaining choices appear to be Kodi and Emby, or another four letter word.
You just described hardcore Christians and maybe hardcore Muslims as scum due to their religion. Does this not make you an undesirable by your own reasoning?
Here, let me help you.
if (hardcore_attitude &&
(Christian || Muslim || yadayada))
denounce();
If I presented that block to you in code review, you'd make the same observation?
Here, let me help you again.
if (hardcore_attitude) {
if (Christian || Muslim || yadayada)
extra_denounce();
else
denounce_anyway();
}
I actually think YouTube is policing some of this stuff fairly aggressively.
Once I discovered that Maddow is comprehensible at x2 speed (though not always her guests), I find her show worth watching in full (in my entire life, I once had an "introductory" cable subscription for a whole 30 days that they foolishly offered one year where my sad-sack sports team actually made the playoffs—after that it was back to the local pub if I cared enough to watch a game).
I start by watching Maddow's official feed, which usually has about 20 minutes in total, in two pieces, from her most recent show. Later in the day, YouTube usually "suggests" a bootleg copy of the entire show, and if the show was interesting, sometimes I fill in the gaps.
Most of these have the bootleg content downsized substantially, with a lot of visual clutter, audio gaps and pops and clicks overlaid, and sometimes bits and pieces of other news coverage randomly appended at the end. This all appears to be a ruse to evade YouTube's automatic copyright detection. It probably has fairly limited appeal, the kind of hardcore wonk such as myself who doesn't give a shit that it was filmed through a potato, so long as the guest is entirely unlike Kellyanne Conway.
Lately the pops and clicks have disappeared, but the audio is 3–5 seconds out of sync with the video (it shocks me that YouTube doesn't provide a way to adjust audio sync on the fly; I found a tip today that VLC supports the J and K keys to shift the audio by 50 ms increments in either direction).
In general, the level of distortion has been on the rise. I have a strong suspicion that this is due to a cat and mouse game that YouTube is taking fairly seriously. They could probably block the generating accounts fairly easily, but they seem to prefer automatic content analysis. I suspect the cat is playing with this mouse somewhat deliberately.
Maybe the clip lasts for 24 hours and gets 1000 views. I think it's fairly immaterial to Maddow's and MSNBC's long term economic prospects.
The biggest trove of copyright material I've found (without seeking it out as such) was several dozen episodes of Inside the Actors Studio featuring all kinds of A-list celebrities.
Then one day in January 2014 I noticed that all of these had vanished in a puff of sour lips. There was one or two episodes I wouldn't mind owning (Robin Williams, Kevin Spacey). But not at USD $80 per disk, which is how I recall the retail price.
YouTube could be better about all this, but it could also be far worse.
Note that YouTube takedowns are fairly severe: it's not just the contents, but the title, the description, the date it was posted, the likes, and all of the user comments that vanish. Total sour face 404.
I like a mild buzz, and maybe every year or three I like to get ripped for all of one evening, but mostly I like my buzz mild.
Eventually I worked out that two 7 g pour-overs spaced about four hours apart is my optimum caffeine intake for the day. I now think twice before adding a green tea. My buzz is perfectly dialed in.
It's the difference between Larry Flynt kicking his addition after surgery (his distress was mainly physical) and Althea Flynt not kicking her addition (her distress was mainly emotional). At least that's how The People told the story.
Craving more buzz, no matter how much buzz you already have, that's a recipe destined for trouble if I've ever seen one.
Some people seem to believe that behind every gate lies an even bigger (and better) gate. Other people don't. Caffeine is only a gateway for the most extreme of the gateway believers.
Hmmm, didn't Anne Murray once sing a song about "gateway believers"?
More of a market than Wall St, so long as they continue to accept giant bail-outs.
It is a truth liberally side-stepped, that any enterprising man in possession of a fast fortune—who now finds himself the kingpin of a mature industry—must be in want of escaping natural market forces.
Claims of a pending AI apocalypse come almost exclusively from the ranks of individuals such as Musk, Hawking, and Bostrom who possess no formal training in the field...
When a nascent field such as this is first formalized, people like Feynman and Hawking are invited to join the inaugural faculty, because they bring an elite form of common sense to the party, which helps to pack some real oomph into "formal" as it first takes shape.
This remark is at best a form of ad hominem, once removed, starting from an especially high prominence.
I happen not to agree with Hawking on this issue. All the better. That, too, is how "formal" finally squeezes through its narrow birth canal.
...because they are considered to be worth more than a college student in America, that have significantly higher suicide rates.
I hate to break your bitter pill, but once American colleges fully implement the mandatory age-parity quotas, your beloved suicide rate will no longer thrive in this equation.
Big, intrusive government is left wing. There is no fundamental difference between fascism and communism, they are both based on denying individual rights.
As it happens, I've read an intelligent comment on this matter before, right here on Slashdot. It was not yours.
Getting a little pedantic here: it doesn't really make much sense to assign the terms "right wing" or "left wing" to a government.
Those terms are meant to express how a person or action or ideal relate to an existing government.
Left is anti-establishment, Right is pro-establishment. Communism is put on the left because it was designed as a revolutionary concept — part and parcel of communism is the overthrow of existing structures of property and the power structures which go along with them.
Likewise Fascism is on the right because it is all about supporting the state.
This is why you call the "right" wing is so often referred to as neoliberals.
The original liberals opposed small government (the monarchy) in favour of individual rights. Then individual rights took a wrong turn and became the oversized tumour of the social democratic state (blame Napoleon and Bismarck and FDR, who all had a hand in this).
The jury is still out on whether small-government Libertarianism mainly delivers conceptual rights that the majority of the population can't actually eat, and whether bearing the most precious of precious Amex cards really does make you an elite silverback, once all moderating government is well and truly brushed to the sidelines.
In all of political history, we had a comfortable, politically independent middle class for all of about 30 years (1950-1980), in a small number of confederacies, of mainly Anglo and European heritage.
Now we've returned to the other extreme, where the wealthy can purpose just about any political privilege desired, burdened with the least possible modicum of pretense of supporting the public interest.
I preferred the original form of freedom, the freedom one could take to the bank, without already being wealthy.
Not being able to afford to add a second bathroom to your household of four people because taxes took the money you would have spent on the new bathroom...
Just because a number flicked across your bank statement, doesn't make it "yours".
You can't even legitimately play make believe about this, unless you actually consumed no government services whatsoever.
Taxes are just another name for payment of services consumed, in aggregate.
You can't even get a group together at a restaurant without encountering this problem.
The cheapskate orders one appetiser, while the glutton orders the platter for two, and both flights of wine. Yet they both consumed table space, and they both depend on the restaurant actually existing, and all the overhead this entails. When the bill comes, are they each paying their exact share of the collective enterprise? Heavens no. Not by any means is this an exact accounting science.
Even if you love toll highways, and you find a way to toll for every square inch of asphalt (without merely enriching the booth monopoly), it's still not an exact accounting. There are sunk costs, and marginal costs, and arbitrary fee schedules designed to somehow split the difference.
Anyway, your complain reminds me of that time I stuck a dollar coin in a slot machine, and it robbed me of my future swimming pool.
On 22 April 2005, Harvard University's Mind/Brain/Behavior Initiative held a defining debate on the public discussion that began on January 16th with the public comments by Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard, on sex differences between men and women and how they may relate to the careers of women in science.
The debate at MBB, "The Gender of Gender and Science" was "on the research on mind, brain, and behavior that may be relevant to gender disparities in the sciences, including the studies of bias, discrimination and innate and acquired difference between the sexes".
Apparently, nothing has changed. I thought Pinker argued the issues and Spelke mostly engaged in an end run, but the audience (a tweed of elite leftish sympathizers) voted for Spelke.
Spelke was among the strongest critics of Lawrence Summers and in April 2005 faced Steven Pinker in an open debate over the issue.
She declared that her own experiments revealed no difference between the mental capacities of male and female children ranging in age from 5 months to 7 years old.
Yeah, androgen is just a confound, leave it out.
Besides, only half the debate is about capacities. The other half is about drive and narrowness of focus. Women generally don't wish to be as mentally narrow as the most extreme men, and sometimes choose balance over advancement.
I get it. Women resent the past and present reality that choosing balance over wonk navel-gaze has such a striking impact on the pocketbook, at the top end of the curve.
Society can decide—collectively—to diminish the natural premium of an unconstrained market. And maybe we should (sometimes naked incentive is quite the bitch), though you won't get many of the more strident voices in this debate to admit that this is what we're actually talking about.
Here's the butt-naked truth: a lot of young males who aren't getting laid don't give a flying fuck about life balance.
I get it. It's hard to compete with testicles hell bent on a self-destructive war path of personality implosion.
This was written precisely to lampoon the cognitive morass surrounding this issue.
This is not to say that women are humorless, or cannot make great wits and comedians. And if they did not operate on the humor wavelength, there would be scant point in half killing oneself in the attempt to make them writhe and scream (uproariously). Wit, after all, is the unfailing symptom of intelligence. Men will laugh at almost anything, often precisely because it is—or they are—extremely stupid. Women aren't like that. ... Fran [Lebowitz] responded: "The cultural values are male; for a woman to say a man is funny is the equivalent of a man saying that a woman is pretty. Also, humor is largely aggressive and pre-emptive, and what's more male than that?" ... There are more terrible female comedians than there are terrible male comedians, but there are some impressive ladies out there. Most of them, though, when you come to review the situation, are hefty or dykey or Jewish, or some combo of the three. When Roseanne stands up and tells biker jokes and invites people who don't dig her shtick to suck her dick—know what I am saying? And the Sapphic faction may have its own reasons for wanting what I want—the sweet surrender of female laughter.
Strangely my textbox spelling checker did not flag corrupt^H^H^Hgreatful as a misspelling.
And then, like, five minutes later, my subconscious goes ding, ding, ding, I saw what you did.
Yeah, what was that?
Homo—
Oh, no! Don't finish that thought. It was probably "greatful", wasn't it. I had a bad feeling for a fleeting second there, but I was 34^H^H35 words into a 122^H^H^H123 word sentence, so I just kept barrelling along.
Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia can't make up its mind.
The A.I. Artificial Intelligence page consistently uses "Super-Toys", while the main article, Supertoys Last All Summer Long consistently goes the other direction.
Google: "Super-Toys" Last All Summer Long -"supertoys" = 66,800 results
Google: "SuperToys" Last All Summer Long -"super-toys" = 70,300 results
Squeaker. By the Law of Electoral College, I think the first item wins.
But no, let's aim higher.
Writing Talk: Conversations with top writers of the last fifty years — 2014
And this:
My bold & paragraph breaks.
I think Aldiss would have wanted his views known, so I quoted a bit more than normal given the occasion.
As copyright now works—de facto—everyone who reads the above quotation is now obligated to buy Alex Hamilton's fine book—that's how it now works, right?
With firearms, death is the primary outcome.
Next up, we'll be comparing thalidomide with Mengele harvesting tiny arms.
Who doesn't love Pain compliance?
I'm only tracked by the large number of privacy-guard and productivity extensions installed into Firefox running under a fringe open source OS. I've checked before, it's a highly unique fingerprint.
Yeah, so I'm sure there are some companies out there tracking me as the man with seven middle fingers, all extended in the direction of the company tracking me.
Thus, I only ever see advertising for the Armsel Striker.
Haha. Just kidding. Though I might actually click through if they did take a hint.
When 'Liking' a Brand Online Voids the Right to Sue — 16 April 2014
It's not the first time we've been taxed unreasonably for touching a toe to the yellow brick road, Dorothy.
General Mills Kansas City flour plant likely behind E. coli outbreak — 1 June 2016
Though for our own safety, we really have to stop meeting like this.
But what about the user who wants to swab his or her throbbing anus to see if the macro-penis assailant was microbiologically weaponized?
We need a list.
Aren't you being way too concerned about the wrong side of this?
I used to have a special T-shirt I called my "watching other people work" shirt.
It's also useful for watching other people "just" hump their giant TVs back to the box store way out at the box store urban fringe.
Of course, those who deliberately situate themselves smack dab in the middle of boxurbia have nothing else planned for Saturday in any case. For this class of people, random "undo" errands are apparently features, not bugs.
Chu's limit appears to have been somewhat pragmatic in assuming that certain kinds of electrical circuits could not be feasibly realized.
Chu's Limit—a limit no more — 23 February 2017
The part I understand: built and measured.
Unfortunately, our justice system routinely falls far short of this mark when dealing with corporations.
For Microsoft, the jump to Windows 10 represented a one-time only change of business models.
And even as the legal dust settles, we didn't make them wish they hadn't done what they done.
Why can't corporations also be lowly worms under the law?
____
JUDGE Who said that? Who the fuck said that? Who's the slimy little communist shit twinkle-toed cocksucker down here, who just signed his own death warrant? Nobody, huh?! The fairy fucking godmother said it! Out-fucking-standing! I will P.T. you all until you fucking die! I'll P.T. you until your assholes are sucking buttermilk.
Judge grabs Poettering by the shirt.
JUDGE Was it you, you scroungy little fuck, huh?!
POETTERING Sir, no, sir!
JUDGE You little piece of shit! You look like a fucking worm! I'll bet it was you!
POETTERING Sir, no, sir!
MICROSOFT Sir, I said it, sir! Sergeant steps up to Microsoft.
JUDGE Well ... no shit. What have we got here, a fucking comedian? Private Microsoft? I admire your honesty. Hell, I like you. You can come over to my house and fuck my sister.
Judge punches Microsoft in the tenders. Microsoft sags to his knees.
JUDGE You little scumbag! I've got your name! I've got your ass! You will not laugh! You will not cry! You will learn by the numbers. I will teach you. Now get up! Get on your feet! You had best unfuck yourself or I will unscrew your head and shit down your neck!
MICROSOFT Sir, yes, sir!
JUDGE Private Microsoft, why did you join my beloved Private Sector?
MICROSOFT Sir, to kill, sir!
JUDGE So you're a killer!
MICROSOFT Sir, yes, sir!
JUDGE Let me see your war face!
MICROSOFT Sir?
JUDGE You've got a war face? Aaaaaaaagh! That's a war face. Now let me see your war face!
MICROSOFT Aaaaaaaagh!
JUDGE Bullshit! You didn't convince me! Let me see your real war face!
MICROSOFT Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!
JUDGE You didn't scare me! Work on it!
MICROSOFT Sir, yes, sir!
It only works out to the same thing in a shittier universe, in which the CC companies are rewarded for mandating perverse incentives to their own advantage.
if (explicit_extortion || implicit_extortion) {
buy_elsewhere();
}
else {
if (spiff_available) {
pocket_spiff();
}
else
there_is_always_cash();
}
In Alan Alda's book If I Understood You, Would I Have This Look on My Face? (2017), he does an experiment in teaching engineering students theatrical improvisation techniques (specifically, exercises advocated by Viola Spolin).
What he observes about these students giving (often stilted) talks to each other (especially in the before condition) is that they barely understand each other's technical jargon.
These are students of mostly the same age and generation, attending the same school, talking mostly the same courses, but focusing on different projects.
I wouldn't call myself a polymath, but I've acquired a way to handle people talking vaguely over my head across a wide range of subject matters (much of the humanities and most of STEM). It's based on years and years of rarely letting an unfamiliar reference pass across my screen without a Google search, a wide range of reading interests, and a facility for careful listening and active questioning.
If a wonk has difficulty conversing with me, he/she probably has difficulty talking to his/her colleague down the hall. At that point, you just need to know not to take it personally.
I'd rather do another thousand Google searches than spend a week on the Queen of Norwalk steaming around some mosquito-infested tropical coastline.
I guess that part of it is 90% temperament.
The only channel I need is the channel I'm presently watching.
That's why I generally buy just one or two flavours of potato chips at a time. If I had ten flavours in the house, I'd be hard pressed to eat anything else.
You never know who has only been online for just a month or few, otherwise we could cut to the chase and simply name every last one one of them after their departure lounge orifice.
One has to be a staggeringly malignant blockhead to avoid becoming sensitised to this retroactive ass bite in less time than you can google the newest Snapchat replacement (I'm not actually intending to date myself here, but there's an egg timer risk).
I have a FreeNAS 11 crash box for trying out various things, but I didn't progress very far with the media server thing.
My remaining choices appear to be Kodi and Emby, or another four letter word.
Here, let me help you.
if (hardcore_attitude &&
(Christian || Muslim || yadayada))
denounce();
If I presented that block to you in code review, you'd make the same observation?
Here, let me help you again.
if (hardcore_attitude) {
if (Christian || Muslim || yadayada)
extra_denounce();
else
denounce_anyway();
}
I just measured my fairly stiff and robust home stock at 5.5 g per US page. Many offices use paper half this robust.
I actually think YouTube is policing some of this stuff fairly aggressively.
Once I discovered that Maddow is comprehensible at x2 speed (though not always her guests), I find her show worth watching in full (in my entire life, I once had an "introductory" cable subscription for a whole 30 days that they foolishly offered one year where my sad-sack sports team actually made the playoffs—after that it was back to the local pub if I cared enough to watch a game).
I start by watching Maddow's official feed, which usually has about 20 minutes in total, in two pieces, from her most recent show. Later in the day, YouTube usually "suggests" a bootleg copy of the entire show, and if the show was interesting, sometimes I fill in the gaps.
Most of these have the bootleg content downsized substantially, with a lot of visual clutter, audio gaps and pops and clicks overlaid, and sometimes bits and pieces of other news coverage randomly appended at the end. This all appears to be a ruse to evade YouTube's automatic copyright detection. It probably has fairly limited appeal, the kind of hardcore wonk such as myself who doesn't give a shit that it was filmed through a potato, so long as the guest is entirely unlike Kellyanne Conway.
Lately the pops and clicks have disappeared, but the audio is 3–5 seconds out of sync with the video (it shocks me that YouTube doesn't provide a way to adjust audio sync on the fly; I found a tip today that VLC supports the J and K keys to shift the audio by 50 ms increments in either direction).
In general, the level of distortion has been on the rise. I have a strong suspicion that this is due to a cat and mouse game that YouTube is taking fairly seriously. They could probably block the generating accounts fairly easily, but they seem to prefer automatic content analysis. I suspect the cat is playing with this mouse somewhat deliberately.
Maybe the clip lasts for 24 hours and gets 1000 views. I think it's fairly immaterial to Maddow's and MSNBC's long term economic prospects.
The biggest trove of copyright material I've found (without seeking it out as such) was several dozen episodes of Inside the Actors Studio featuring all kinds of A-list celebrities.
Then one day in January 2014 I noticed that all of these had vanished in a puff of sour lips. There was one or two episodes I wouldn't mind owning (Robin Williams, Kevin Spacey). But not at USD $80 per disk, which is how I recall the retail price.
YouTube could be better about all this, but it could also be far worse.
Note that YouTube takedowns are fairly severe: it's not just the contents, but the title, the description, the date it was posted, the likes, and all of the user comments that vanish. Total sour face 404.
Which came first? The goal or the behaviour?
I like a mild buzz, and maybe every year or three I like to get ripped for all of one evening, but mostly I like my buzz mild.
Eventually I worked out that two 7 g pour-overs spaced about four hours apart is my optimum caffeine intake for the day. I now think twice before adding a green tea. My buzz is perfectly dialed in.
It's the difference between Larry Flynt kicking his addition after surgery (his distress was mainly physical) and Althea Flynt not kicking her addition (her distress was mainly emotional). At least that's how The People told the story.
Craving more buzz, no matter how much buzz you already have, that's a recipe destined for trouble if I've ever seen one.
Some people seem to believe that behind every gate lies an even bigger (and better) gate. Other people don't. Caffeine is only a gateway for the most extreme of the gateway believers.
Hmmm, didn't Anne Murray once sing a song about "gateway believers"?
I suspect that if those n^2 reductions existed for all the as-yet unsolved problems, we would have figured out that P=NP long ago.
It might just be that reductions with provable lower-bound n >> 2 are likewise >> hard to find.
In which case your reasoning leads nowhere.
More of a market than Wall St, so long as they continue to accept giant bail-outs.
When a nascent field such as this is first formalized, people like Feynman and Hawking are invited to join the inaugural faculty, because they bring an elite form of common sense to the party, which helps to pack some real oomph into "formal" as it first takes shape.
This remark is at best a form of ad hominem, once removed, starting from an especially high prominence.
I happen not to agree with Hawking on this issue. All the better. That, too, is how "formal" finally squeezes through its narrow birth canal.
I hate to break your bitter pill, but once American colleges fully implement the mandatory age-parity quotas, your beloved suicide rate will no longer thrive in this equation.
As it happens, I've read an intelligent comment on this matter before, right here on Slashdot. It was not yours.
guises — December 2016
This is why you call the "right" wing is so often referred to as neoliberals.
The original liberals opposed small government (the monarchy) in favour of individual rights. Then individual rights took a wrong turn and became the oversized tumour of the social democratic state (blame Napoleon and Bismarck and FDR, who all had a hand in this).
The jury is still out on whether small-government Libertarianism mainly delivers conceptual rights that the majority of the population can't actually eat, and whether bearing the most precious of precious Amex cards really does make you an elite silverback, once all moderating government is well and truly brushed to the sidelines.
In all of political history, we had a comfortable, politically independent middle class for all of about 30 years (1950-1980), in a small number of confederacies, of mainly Anglo and European heritage.
Now we've returned to the other extreme, where the wealthy can purpose just about any political privilege desired, burdened with the least possible modicum of pretense of supporting the public interest.
I preferred the original form of freedom, the freedom one could take to the bank, without already being wealthy.
Just because a number flicked across your bank statement, doesn't make it "yours".
You can't even legitimately play make believe about this, unless you actually consumed no government services whatsoever.
Taxes are just another name for payment of services consumed, in aggregate.
You can't even get a group together at a restaurant without encountering this problem.
The cheapskate orders one appetiser, while the glutton orders the platter for two, and both flights of wine. Yet they both consumed table space, and they both depend on the restaurant actually existing, and all the overhead this entails. When the bill comes, are they each paying their exact share of the collective enterprise? Heavens no. Not by any means is this an exact accounting science.
Even if you love toll highways, and you find a way to toll for every square inch of asphalt (without merely enriching the booth monopoly), it's still not an exact accounting. There are sunk costs, and marginal costs, and arbitrary fee schedules designed to somehow split the difference.
Anyway, your complain reminds me of that time I stuck a dollar coin in a slot machine, and it robbed me of my future swimming pool.
Pinker vs. Spelke
Apparently, nothing has changed. I thought Pinker argued the issues and Spelke mostly engaged in an end run, but the audience (a tweed of elite leftish sympathizers) voted for Spelke.
Yeah, androgen is just a confound, leave it out.
Besides, only half the debate is about capacities. The other half is about drive and narrowness of focus. Women generally don't wish to be as mentally narrow as the most extreme men, and sometimes choose balance over advancement.
I get it. Women resent the past and present reality that choosing balance over wonk navel-gaze has such a striking impact on the pocketbook, at the top end of the curve.
Society can decide—collectively—to diminish the natural premium of an unconstrained market. And maybe we should (sometimes naked incentive is quite the bitch), though you won't get many of the more strident voices in this debate to admit that this is what we're actually talking about.
Here's the butt-naked truth: a lot of young males who aren't getting laid don't give a flying fuck about life balance.
I get it. It's hard to compete with testicles hell bent on a self-destructive war path of personality implosion.
Hitchens: Why Women Aren't Funny — 2007
This was written precisely to lampoon the cognitive morass surrounding this issue.
Natalie Morales Calls Christopher Hitchens an 'A–hole' for Saying Women Aren't Funny — 2017
Awesome! Di
Strangely my textbox spelling checker did not flag corrupt^H^H^Hgreatful as a misspelling.
And then, like, five minutes later, my subconscious goes ding, ding, ding, I saw what you did.
Yeah, what was that?
Homo—
Oh, no! Don't finish that thought. It was probably "greatful", wasn't it. I had a bad feeling for a fleeting second there, but I was 34^H^H35 words into a 122^H^H^H123 word sentence, so I just kept barrelling along.