How the hell is this considered a "selfie"? It's just an automatic 3D scanner. Its function is similar to automatic photographing machines whose output nobody would call a selfie.
Ah, but you certainly sound "hip" and "cool" when discussing technology merely in the context of inane teenage habits.
It is for Scotland to decide! They can apply for membership any time, just like Turkey, for instance.
Sure. That doesn't mean they will be accepted. For a new member to be accepted there has to be a unanimous decision of the existing members and many of them have indicated clearly that they won't agree. Baroso has made it clear that it would be "very difficult" for an indpendent Scotland to be admitted to the EU.
Errr... Ever heard of the Czech and the Slovaks?
Czechoslovakia split in two (peacefully) and both halves joined the EU right away, and were welcome with open arms, if memory serves well.
Your memory does not serve well, since those countries split up in 1993 and were accepted into the EU in 2004.
The Euro is not the EU, and vice-versa. There is a ton of countries that are EU members, but still have their national currencies.
The Euro is not the EU but it is pretty close. There are two countries (UK and Denmark) that have been given the option to refrain from joining the Euro. Those exceptions were granted many years ago and no more such exceptions will be given. For all other EU countries joining the Euro is mandatory. The reason some of them have not joined is that their economies have not yet approached the indicators necessary to be accepted. They continue to be obliged to strive to attain those indicators.
You are not making any sense - again, the currency you use is totally independent from EU membership itself.
As I said, no it's not at all independent, it's closely related and you have no idea what you are talking about.
"Islamists" were in power in Egypt for over a year, which pyramids were turned into mosques? What known treasures were looted? When was the Sphinx defaced?
I have been an employed programmer for about 8 years now, dropped out of school to get paid instead of paying. Every single person I have had to work with who had a CS degree have had two traits in common. First, they love to remind you they have the degree. Second, they barely contribute anything to production except great ideas of how not to do things.
As a non-degree'd person, I have done contract work for 3 separate universities so far. You would think they would have an infinite supply of proud cheap labour to tap before giving me a call.
You sound pretty bitter.
Also, has it dawned on you that people might be doing a degree because... they want to learn things, i.e. not necessarily to make money on their job? Is this notion so outlandish to you that you fail to even acknowledge it?
Also, in many (most?) countries you do not pay to go to university.
The folks that are delusional are those that believe that the United States is less corrupt than any other society.
I have visited several other societies and I can tell you that the United States is absolutely less corrupt than any other society that I have visited. Of course, I have only witnessed a few: Several Central American Countries, France, South Korea, India, China.
I wouldn't say it is less corrupt; the impression you describe is mostly due to the fact that the US has legalized most forms of corruption under the guise of either "lobbying" or "private contributions to the political parties".
Reddit users have verified via decompilation that the dump file includes a wallet-stealing executable. The executable attempts to send the wallet to a hard-coded IP address, whose ISP has been notified of this.
Just go here and check the signature of the certificate you are getting against the one listed there. If they don't match you know there's someone fucking around.
So long as you don't use the test set as a training set, sure you are, just as much as you were the first time that you went back and put yourself in their shoes. Remember, I'm talking about machine learning algorithms, so the algorithm has no knowledge of the test set when you "go back".
Once you select the algorithm then yeah, it doesn't have any knowledge of the test set. However, *you* have knowledge and you use that knowledge to select the algorithm and/or tune its parameters.
No, bookmakers don't compute odds. They compute (and recompute) a number that will put 50% of the betting population on each side of the line. It has nothing to do with who is going to win.
That bookmakers try to split the betting money 50-50 might be true when the betting is against the spread. But not all betting is against the spread. It is also possible, for example, to bet on the "moneyline", i.e. on who is going to win the match. It is easy to see then that moneyline betting pays different odds for each team in match. In such cases the bookmaker, if he wants to guarantee a profit, has to split the money in a different way, for example if a team has 90% chance to win the match, he needs to take about 90% of the betting on that team. This is rarely possible though, because most betting happens on the favorites and when the favorites win the bookmakers mostly lose money.
You are also overlooking another component: That some bookmakers want to get the early action, and when they open the betting there is no line consensus to follow, so they have to set their own price. When this happens it means they *are* analyzing the matchup.
But even if we ignore all the aforementioned and only look at spread betting, where the 50-50 split is mostly possible, even then, it is not true to say that the betting odds have "nothing to do with who is going to win". They have *everything* to do with who is going to win. Peer-reviewed research has shown, time and time again (look at any of the papers here) , that betting markets are extremely efficient, i.e. betting odds reflect very closely the real probability of events. This happens *exactly* because the line is, to a large extent, shaped by public betting, which means that misconceptions on part of individual gamblers are cancelled out.
The guy said in an interview he gave in the Greek media that even the police officers and the prosecutors were really upset that they had to charge him... but "dura lex, sed lex" - don't worry, he is not going to jail or anything like that.
This is BS. There have been many similar cases in Greece and most of them have resulted in acquittals.
Your description of Greek religiousness is not correct. You are presenting it as if religion is universally treated as a vital part of national identity, which it is not. It is only treated thus by the right wing; the left wing (received about 32% in the last election) and most of the center (received about 15%) have always been clearly in favor of church-state separation.
In Greece, judges are required to suspend all non-felony sentences, unless the convicted has a criminal record. Even if you have a criminal record, the sentence can be still suspended, and even if it is not then, for non-felony sentences, you can buy the prison time for 10 euros per day.
If you get a suspended sentence it does not show on your public criminal record, only to the one available to judges.
So there is no chance that this guy will go to prison, and the conviction is very likely to be reversed when the appeal is heard.
If you have a company and some money to burn (for coding the bitcoin business logic which will net you no profit), hurry and declare that you will be accepting bitcoins... The publicity stunt will get you on every news website and this will raise your non-bitcoin business, the only one that matters that is.
The Greek government passed a similarly broadly-worded law in 2002 , also in its attempt to ban the games of chance (slot machines) that had infested cafes, pool halls and internet cafes. The wording of the law banned all video games, whether of chance or of skill, and whether they were played at home or at a business.
The article I'm linking is exaggerating; nobody was arrested or charged for playing video games at home (although the law allowed the authorities to do so). What the law really did was to eradicate all arcades, even those that had no slot machines. Want to play Pac-Man, Metal Slug and/or Street Fighter? Sorry, no go. Arcades started re-appearing more than five years later, even though the law is still in effect as far as I know.
Technology + lawmakers = stupidity. And we're not talking about cutting edge technology here, we're talking arcade video games that have been around since the 70s.
So in order to opt out of this you'll have to sign a document that says "Hello, my name is John Jones and I would like to have my access to porn re-instated, please. Thanks." I can certainly see people having difficulty doing this and/or explaining it to their significant other.
Pardon my ignorance, by why is it repulsive to see attractive people at product promotion booths?
Because attractiveness means a whole lot more to a woman than it does to a man. Women really can't stand other women being more attractive to them. Really.
Just use another Scrabble-like implementation. It's not exactly the most complex game in the world to implement. Yahoo has had Literati for about a decade, and it works fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but you certainly sound "hip" and "cool" when discussing technology merely in the context of inane teenage habits.
It is for Scotland to decide! They can apply for membership any time, just like Turkey, for instance.
Sure. That doesn't mean they will be accepted. For a new member to be accepted there has to be a unanimous decision of the existing members and many of them have indicated clearly that they won't agree. Baroso has made it clear that it would be "very difficult" for an indpendent Scotland to be admitted to the EU.
Errr... Ever heard of the Czech and the Slovaks?
Czechoslovakia split in two (peacefully) and both halves joined the EU right away, and were welcome with open arms, if memory serves well.
Your memory does not serve well, since those countries split up in 1993 and were accepted into the EU in 2004.
The Euro is not the EU, and vice-versa. There is a ton of countries that are EU members, but still have their national currencies.
The Euro is not the EU but it is pretty close. There are two countries (UK and Denmark) that have been given the option to refrain from joining the Euro. Those exceptions were granted many years ago and no more such exceptions will be given. For all other EU countries joining the Euro is mandatory. The reason some of them have not joined is that their economies have not yet approached the indicators necessary to be accepted. They continue to be obliged to strive to attain those indicators.
You are not making any sense - again, the currency you use is totally independent from EU membership itself.
As I said, no it's not at all independent, it's closely related and you have no idea what you are talking about.
"Islamists" were in power in Egypt for over a year, which pyramids were turned into mosques? What known treasures were looted? When was the Sphinx defaced?
Here you are.
I have been an employed programmer for about 8 years now, dropped out of school to get paid instead of paying. Every single person I have had to work with who had a CS degree have had two traits in common. First, they love to remind you they have the degree. Second, they barely contribute anything to production except great ideas of how not to do things.
As a non-degree'd person, I have done contract work for 3 separate universities so far. You would think they would have an infinite supply of proud cheap labour to tap before giving me a call.
You sound pretty bitter.
Also, has it dawned on you that people might be doing a degree because... they want to learn things, i.e. not necessarily to make money on their job? Is this notion so outlandish to you that you fail to even acknowledge it?
Also, in many (most?) countries you do not pay to go to university.
"world" is not equivalent to "US", unless you are in the US of course.
The folks that are delusional are those that believe that the United States is less corrupt than any other society.
I have visited several other societies and I can tell you that the United States is absolutely less corrupt than any other society that I have visited. Of course, I have only witnessed a few: Several Central American Countries, France, South Korea, India, China.
I wouldn't say it is less corrupt; the impression you describe is mostly due to the fact that the US has legalized most forms of corruption under the guise of either "lobbying" or "private contributions to the political parties".
Maybe he doesn't care about the quality loss; many people don't. Who are you to tell them what they should like?
Actually it was Bulgaria, and they responded that they will take care of this.
Reddit users have verified via decompilation that the dump file includes a wallet-stealing executable. The executable attempts to send the wallet to a hard-coded IP address, whose ISP has been notified of this.
Just go here and check the signature of the certificate you are getting against the one listed there. If they don't match you know there's someone fucking around.
So long as you don't use the test set as a training set, sure you are, just as much as you were the first time that you went back and put yourself in their shoes. Remember, I'm talking about machine learning algorithms, so the algorithm has no knowledge of the test set when you "go back".
Once you select the algorithm then yeah, it doesn't have any knowledge of the test set. However, *you* have knowledge and you use that knowledge to select the algorithm and/or tune its parameters.
If you didn't get it right, you go back and try again.
You were doing fine until you reached that point... If you "try again" then you are no longer in the shoes of a 1970s scientist, are you?
No, bookmakers don't compute odds. They compute (and recompute) a number that will put 50% of the betting population on each side of the line. It has nothing to do with who is going to win.
That bookmakers try to split the betting money 50-50 might be true when the betting is against the spread. But not all betting is against the spread. It is also possible, for example, to bet on the "moneyline", i.e. on who is going to win the match. It is easy to see then that moneyline betting pays different odds for each team in match. In such cases the bookmaker, if he wants to guarantee a profit, has to split the money in a different way, for example if a team has 90% chance to win the match, he needs to take about 90% of the betting on that team. This is rarely possible though, because most betting happens on the favorites and when the favorites win the bookmakers mostly lose money.
You are also overlooking another component: That some bookmakers want to get the early action, and when they open the betting there is no line consensus to follow, so they have to set their own price. When this happens it means they *are* analyzing the matchup.
But even if we ignore all the aforementioned and only look at spread betting, where the 50-50 split is mostly possible, even then, it is not true to say that the betting odds have "nothing to do with who is going to win". They have *everything* to do with who is going to win. Peer-reviewed research has shown, time and time again (look at any of the papers here) , that betting markets are extremely efficient, i.e. betting odds reflect very closely the real probability of events. This happens *exactly* because the line is, to a large extent, shaped by public betting, which means that misconceptions on part of individual gamblers are cancelled out.
The guy said in an interview he gave in the Greek media that even the police officers and the prosecutors were really upset that they had to charge him... but "dura lex, sed lex" - don't worry, he is not going to jail or anything like that.
This is BS. There have been many similar cases in Greece and most of them have resulted in acquittals.
I am also Greek.
Your description of Greek religiousness is not correct. You are presenting it as if religion is universally treated as a vital part of national identity, which it is not. It is only treated thus by the right wing; the left wing (received about 32% in the last election) and most of the center (received about 15%) have always been clearly in favor of church-state separation.
In Greece, judges are required to suspend all non-felony sentences, unless the convicted has a criminal record. Even if you have a criminal record, the sentence can be still suspended, and even if it is not then, for non-felony sentences, you can buy the prison time for 10 euros per day.
If you get a suspended sentence it does not show on your public criminal record, only to the one available to judges.
So there is no chance that this guy will go to prison, and the conviction is very likely to be reversed when the appeal is heard.
If you have a company and some money to burn (for coding the bitcoin business logic which will net you no profit), hurry and declare that you will be accepting bitcoins... The publicity stunt will get you on every news website and this will raise your non-bitcoin business, the only one that matters that is.
This is nothing more than a publicity stunt. There's no non-cumbersome way to set prices in bitcoin, as its price flunctuates wildly.
I read the news on paper for the same reason I read books on paper: It's more convenient reading on paper than reading on the screen.
The Greek government passed a similarly broadly-worded law in 2002 , also in its attempt to ban the games of chance (slot machines) that had infested cafes, pool halls and internet cafes. The wording of the law banned all video games, whether of chance or of skill, and whether they were played at home or at a business.
The article I'm linking is exaggerating; nobody was arrested or charged for playing video games at home (although the law allowed the authorities to do so). What the law really did was to eradicate all arcades, even those that had no slot machines. Want to play Pac-Man, Metal Slug and/or Street Fighter? Sorry, no go. Arcades started re-appearing more than five years later, even though the law is still in effect as far as I know.
Technology + lawmakers = stupidity. And we're not talking about cutting edge technology here, we're talking arcade video games that have been around since the 70s.
So in order to opt out of this you'll have to sign a document that says "Hello, my name is John Jones and I would like to have my access to porn re-instated, please. Thanks." I can certainly see people having difficulty doing this and/or explaining it to their significant other.
Pardon my ignorance, by why is it repulsive to see attractive people at product promotion booths?
Because attractiveness means a whole lot more to a woman than it does to a man. Women really can't stand other women being more attractive to them. Really.
Because we all know that Senators know everything about technology.
Are you series? What exactly tube you mean?
PRISM?
Just use another Scrabble-like implementation. It's not exactly the most complex game in the world to implement. Yahoo has had Literati for about a decade, and it works fine.