Miller Lite won a beer medal anywhere - even in the USA? For that to be possible it has to be as rigged as the Eurovision Song Contest.
Oh wait a minute, the link says the category of "Best American-Style Light Lager" but you cut that out of the middle of your quote.
WTF is it with the goldpost shifting and the misrepresentation by omission - OVER A JOKE. Your misquote makes it appear that it won the medal for the best beer in the world many times but here is what Wikipedia really has if your link is followed:
Miller Lite won the World Beer Cup's gold medal for Best American-Style Light Lager in 1996, 1998, 2012, 2013, and 2016.
Do you pull this dishonest little stunt often? Why? WTF is wrong with you? This issue is so incredibly trivial but you lowered yourself that far.
The fact that you can't refute my arguments is telling
Sorry kid - I refuted everything apart from your inexpensive knife distraction so you've got that utterly wrong. It may work at your high school debating club but it's a big world out there and your obvious bullshit relies on a tiny bubble full of the naive.
I voted for Hillary
So? Is that supposed to be another distraction?
You write like a politician with an agenda rather than a regular Joe with a real argument
So something demonstrating thought instead of directionless whining after a six-pack or two? What's with the "dumb is good" fetish?
How about acting like a human being instead of an Eliza bot with a random insult file. How about actually reading the original of the book you've taken your name from? It may help you grow up. Is that enough for you to get an idea of how much your "take some art classes" made me laugh? You may note my post earlier was critical of your disgusting action and not you personally, but if you are going to write shit like "you should take some art classes" the gloves are off.
You disgust me writing such shit as you did in response to a murder. How fucking immature.
presumably this sort of thing is acceptable at the root of the US government as well, meaning it is deeply rooted with the fabric of American sub-culture
If enough of them decided to do their duty as citizens and get off their asses to vote you may have a point, but for some time US government seems to have bounced from one quite unrepresentative group to another. Currently we have a bunch where "is he rich" seems to be the main selection criteria even for military advisors.
So I disagree. Oliver North and the others running the NRA may have that view and the cash from their members to influence politics but is it really deeply rooted with the fabric of American sub-culture? The squeaky wheel is getting attention but does it really reflect the entire situation?
Also, to stave off knee-jerk reactions, there are many choices between the utterly stupid extremes of a total ban and zero restrictions. As it is your neighbor can't legally use a mortar to bombard prairie dogs so there is some gun control already.
The focus on the least important bit of the post above is telling and you should be ashamed of yourself. I've been told that it is quite difficult in comparison to kill people with knives even after extensive training. A gun is a handheld point-and-click device designed to kill things. I was killing things with a rifle at the age of nine, and that's at range. A pistol at very short range is even easier.
And what makes you believe that you're not the one people can't have a rational discussion with? If you're so quick to put all pro-gun people in the same bucket as the lunatic who shot that guy, then you're not much better than the people who put you in the same bucket as ISIS terrorists.
Good work! Perfect example! By personally attacking the guy that does little more than mention the issue you've demonstrated very clearly why a rational discussion is difficult. Keep up the good work! All those workers in gun factories in Belgium (eg. the Bush "America" tweet with his picture of a Belgian made gun) and elsewhere who depend on American purchases of guns salute you.
I don't vote for Trump but I want to be sure I never end up working for your organization by mistake
If they are asking for people's political views in a job interview it's going to be so obvious that there will be no mistake. I've heard of this sort of screening a lot but only with "think-tanks" and similar parasitical groups. They need somewhere to park all the "political staffers" when the wrong bunch is in power and they can't get a political job by nepotism alone.
However, they are fighting to change laws I want changed
That is a side effect of their utter contempt for anything other than making money by cutting as many corners as possible and their customers and staff be damned. Government protected monopolies have sucked since King John used it as a way to raise extra cash (and most likely earlier) but Uber are not really fighting against that stuff, they are quite happy to bribe their way around it and still leave those laws in place to impact on everyone else.
How can you build an honest business on such an obvious lie as "ride sharing"? Anyway, that's my opinion - "beware of Greeks bearing gifts" and all that. Uber are not on our side even if they are trying to weasel their way around some unjust laws that we do not like either. They just want a clause in those unjust laws exempting Uber and not the repeal of them. I don't really see that as "fighting to change laws I want changed" despite them wanting to project that image.
It's not a cop's call to decide guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Besides, here's what I was actually replying to:
Would you trust a police officer whose cases only made it to a jury a small number of times, but 80 percent of those times the jury found he had made a wrongful arrest
If only a very small number of arrested suspects plead not guilty and have their case go the a jury trial then the cop is doing quite well are they not? Also plenty of people are arrested on suspicion and released without ever going to trial after questioning or evidence shows that they are not guilty - nothing wrong with that, it's a process not instant magic.
To sum up the analogy is really pretty stupid when you think about it. The complaint about the reality it's being compared to probably even more so. Emotive bullshit being applied to attempt to smear a very conservative error checking system that is working precisely as designed.
This does not look like a critique of the headline
Read it again and relate it to "Self-Driving Cars Should Be Liable For Accidents, Not the Passengers". Note words like "finding a lookup table culpable" in the portion you quoted. Pretty obvious now isn't it? Now haven't you got better things to do than be critical of my trivial whining about misleading editiorial bullshit and how it implies an incredibly stupid cargo cult attitude to A.I?
You wrote yourself that my words had nothing to do with the article, so why this silly "bet both ways"?
There seems to be a lot of misplaced anger just because you made a mistake about what I was writing about. Why remain angry after I have spelt it out very clearly?
Did you even read my post? It was not about the article. The headline is beyond stupid. If you wish to reply to something other than what I wrote then feel free, but don't be critical of me for it.
You make judgements about all articles based on clickbait headlines?
No, I wrote a judgement about the headline based upon the headline and very clearly wrote that I was doing so.
In what way is that making the self driving car liable? The headline is beyond stupid. The machine itself should IMHO not liable whether the manufacturer, programmer, passenger or mapmaker is or not. If someone fucks up the lookup table that people call an A.I. then that person or their employer should be liable instead of some stupid fiction about a car being able to make choices and found to be responsible.
When we have a clue what intelligence actually is and can replicate it in a machine it's time for that to change, but we are nowhere near that.
Would you trust a police officer whose cases only made it to a jury a small number of times, but 80 percent of those times the jury found he had made a wrongful arrest?
If the numbers are small, of course.
What's with the numerology instead of mathematics? Is astrology next?
Beyond stupid - the people in charge of children and livestock are found culpable so why let people in charge of something with less brains than either off?
When we've got an A.I. like the fictional ones of HAL or Colossus it's time to revise the rules, but finding a lookup table culpable? Beyond stupid.
Considering how incredibly politically naive most of them are (they are certainly in for a few shocks and a feeling of betrayal) that's going to get as old as picking on Nixon apologists was.
Yes but it's not just the protectionist laws that Uber are breaking. That's just a part of the swathes of laws they are breaking to cut corners. In Australia for example they have not paid tax since setting up and a raid by the tax office resulted in no employee information since that is apparently all in Holland. It's as if the Scientologists decided to run taxis.
So you've got nothing apart from "Zeppelins in the sky" to counter the news about that's in the summary FFS? Pathetic. Fanboy cheering of "Apple can do no wrong" with zero content.
because throwing a tablespoon of catsup (or ketchup) away in an almost empty bottle is such a crime and a waste
Some people (like me) whose parents grew up during wartime or similar were brought up to think exactly that. A bit of water in the bottle, shake it up and throw it in when making pasta sauce or similar calms that irrational food wasting guilt by getting the last bit out of a normal bottle.
I think the article is an example of a journalist saying "how can we use this in the home" when asking about a new scientific advance. Applied uses may end up really being something in minerals processing but it's harder for most to relate to that than kitchen stuff.
Right out of the bat I was concerned about whether or not this is based on nanotechnology, because we already have super-slick surfaces there. Not sure if I want to eat nanotech.
Since even the whitener in toothpaste got redefined as nanotech you already are despite it being nothing like the way Drexler et al used the term. Androids are phones, hoverboards are skateboards with batteries and nanotech is powder in sunscreen, toothpaste etc - the future is now but it's not matching the hype.
So they came up with a definition that excludes all extrasolar planets (already confirmed to exist) and wandering planets (almost certain to exist)?
Who are you and I to correct astronomers? After all those office workers who call the beige box a "hard drive" think we are getting it wrong when we try to correct them, have you considered that this may be a similar situation?
You can call it whatever you like just as so many office workers call their PC "the hard drive" and the monitor "the computer".
Astronomers apparently decided they wanted a little more precision in their terms when talking to other astronomers. The rest of us appear to just be getting angry when overhearing a conversation not intended for us and I don't think it really matters to us whether astronomers define Pluto as a planet or a different technical term.
It's best when discussing the Uber taxi company to not use their "rideshare" deliberate obfiscation because that leads down the rabbit hole where terms are meaningless. The "uber" was not already going in that direction so the ride is not being shared. It is very deliberately a confusing falsehood so that the Uber taxi company can evade regulations, taxation and employment laws. So much time is wasted on arguing about what the hell they mean and in that time they have done what they want no matter what the public or governments wish for. Insurance of the right sort existed before Uber it is just that Uber choose to cut that corner in addition to all of the others.
Slashdot Mirror
For that to be possible it has to be as rigged as the Eurovision Song Contest.
Oh wait a minute, the link says the category of "Best American-Style Light Lager" but you cut that out of the middle of your quote.
WTF is it with the goldpost shifting and the misrepresentation by omission - OVER A JOKE. Your misquote makes it appear that it won the medal for the best beer in the world many times but here is what Wikipedia really has if your link is followed:
Do you pull this dishonest little stunt often? Why? WTF is wrong with you? This issue is so incredibly trivial but you lowered yourself that far.
Sorry kid - I refuted everything apart from your inexpensive knife distraction so you've got that utterly wrong. It may work at your high school debating club but it's a big world out there and your obvious bullshit relies on a tiny bubble full of the naive.
So? Is that supposed to be another distraction?
So something demonstrating thought instead of directionless whining after a six-pack or two? What's with the "dumb is good" fetish?
How about acting like a human being instead of an Eliza bot with a random insult file.
How about actually reading the original of the book you've taken your name from? It may help you grow up. Is that enough for you to get an idea of how much your "take some art classes" made me laugh? You may note my post earlier was critical of your disgusting action and not you personally, but if you are going to write shit like "you should take some art classes" the gloves are off.
You disgust me writing such shit as you did in response to a murder. How fucking immature.
If enough of them decided to do their duty as citizens and get off their asses to vote you may have a point, but for some time US government seems to have bounced from one quite unrepresentative group to another. Currently we have a bunch where "is he rich" seems to be the main selection criteria even for military advisors.
So I disagree. Oliver North and the others running the NRA may have that view and the cash from their members to influence politics but is it really deeply rooted with the fabric of American sub-culture? The squeaky wheel is getting attention but does it really reflect the entire situation?
Also, to stave off knee-jerk reactions, there are many choices between the utterly stupid extremes of a total ban and zero restrictions. As it is your neighbor can't legally use a mortar to bombard prairie dogs so there is some gun control already.
The focus on the least important bit of the post above is telling and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I've been told that it is quite difficult in comparison to kill people with knives even after extensive training. A gun is a handheld point-and-click device designed to kill things. I was killing things with a rifle at the age of nine, and that's at range. A pistol at very short range is even easier.
Good work! Perfect example! By personally attacking the guy that does little more than mention the issue you've demonstrated very clearly why a rational discussion is difficult.
Keep up the good work! All those workers in gun factories in Belgium (eg. the Bush "America" tweet with his picture of a Belgian made gun) and elsewhere who depend on American purchases of guns salute you.
Good point. Americans don't drink beer just some watery brown stuff so he's better off going home.
Yes, I know it was a joke. So is my reply. I've had some very good beer in Houston but it was from people who brew their own.
If they are asking for people's political views in a job interview it's going to be so obvious that there will be no mistake.
I've heard of this sort of screening a lot but only with "think-tanks" and similar parasitical groups. They need somewhere to park all the "political staffers" when the wrong bunch is in power and they can't get a political job by nepotism alone.
That is a side effect of their utter contempt for anything other than making money by cutting as many corners as possible and their customers and staff be damned.
Government protected monopolies have sucked since King John used it as a way to raise extra cash (and most likely earlier) but Uber are not really fighting against that stuff, they are quite happy to bribe their way around it and still leave those laws in place to impact on everyone else.
How can you build an honest business on such an obvious lie as "ride sharing"?
Anyway, that's my opinion - "beware of Greeks bearing gifts" and all that. Uber are not on our side even if they are trying to weasel their way around some unjust laws that we do not like either. They just want a clause in those unjust laws exempting Uber and not the repeal of them. I don't really see that as "fighting to change laws I want changed" despite them wanting to project that image.
Besides, here's what I was actually replying to:
If only a very small number of arrested suspects plead not guilty and have their case go the a jury trial then the cop is doing quite well are they not?
Also plenty of people are arrested on suspicion and released without ever going to trial after questioning or evidence shows that they are not guilty - nothing wrong with that, it's a process not instant magic.
To sum up the analogy is really pretty stupid when you think about it. The complaint about the reality it's being compared to probably even more so. Emotive bullshit being applied to attempt to smear a very conservative error checking system that is working precisely as designed.
Read it again and relate it to "Self-Driving Cars Should Be Liable For Accidents, Not the Passengers". Note words like "finding a lookup table culpable" in the portion you quoted. Pretty obvious now isn't it?
Now haven't you got better things to do than be critical of my trivial whining about misleading editiorial bullshit and how it implies an incredibly stupid cargo cult attitude to A.I?
You wrote yourself that my words had nothing to do with the article, so why this silly "bet both ways"?
There seems to be a lot of misplaced anger just because you made a mistake about what I was writing about. Why remain angry after I have spelt it out very clearly?
Obviously incorrect because the story says something other than what I was critical of.
Did you even read my post? It was not about the article.
The headline is beyond stupid.
If you wish to reply to something other than what I wrote then feel free, but don't be critical of me for it.
No, I wrote a judgement about the headline based upon the headline and very clearly wrote that I was doing so.
In what way is that making the self driving car liable?
The headline is beyond stupid.
The machine itself should IMHO not liable whether the manufacturer, programmer, passenger or mapmaker is or not. If someone fucks up the lookup table that people call an A.I. then that person or their employer should be liable instead of some stupid fiction about a car being able to make choices and found to be responsible.
When we have a clue what intelligence actually is and can replicate it in a machine it's time for that to change, but we are nowhere near that.
Acetate tape and an acetone based solvent (as in diluted acetone) does it well enough to examine at high resolution with an optical microscope.
If the numbers are small, of course.
What's with the numerology instead of mathematics? Is astrology next?
Beyond stupid - the people in charge of children and livestock are found culpable so why let people in charge of something with less brains than either off?
When we've got an A.I. like the fictional ones of HAL or Colossus it's time to revise the rules, but finding a lookup table culpable? Beyond stupid.
Considering how incredibly politically naive most of them are (they are certainly in for a few shocks and a feeling of betrayal) that's going to get as old as picking on Nixon apologists was.
Yes but it's not just the protectionist laws that Uber are breaking. That's just a part of the swathes of laws they are breaking to cut corners. In Australia for example they have not paid tax since setting up and a raid by the tax office resulted in no employee information since that is apparently all in Holland.
It's as if the Scientologists decided to run taxis.
So you've got nothing apart from "Zeppelins in the sky" to counter the news about that's in the summary FFS?
Pathetic.
Fanboy cheering of "Apple can do no wrong" with zero content.
because throwing a tablespoon of catsup (or ketchup) away in an almost empty bottle is such a crime and a waste
Some people (like me) whose parents grew up during wartime or similar were brought up to think exactly that. A bit of water in the bottle, shake it up and throw it in when making pasta sauce or similar calms that irrational food wasting guilt by getting the last bit out of a normal bottle.
I think the article is an example of a journalist saying "how can we use this in the home" when asking about a new scientific advance. Applied uses may end up really being something in minerals processing but it's harder for most to relate to that than kitchen stuff.
Since even the whitener in toothpaste got redefined as nanotech you already are despite it being nothing like the way Drexler et al used the term.
Androids are phones, hoverboards are skateboards with batteries and nanotech is powder in sunscreen, toothpaste etc - the future is now but it's not matching the hype.
Who are you and I to correct astronomers? After all those office workers who call the beige box a "hard drive" think we are getting it wrong when we try to correct them, have you considered that this may be a similar situation?
You can call it whatever you like just as so many office workers call their PC "the hard drive" and the monitor "the computer".
Astronomers apparently decided they wanted a little more precision in their terms when talking to other astronomers. The rest of us appear to just be getting angry when overhearing a conversation not intended for us and I don't think it really matters to us whether astronomers define Pluto as a planet or a different technical term.
It's best when discussing the Uber taxi company to not use their "rideshare" deliberate obfiscation because that leads down the rabbit hole where terms are meaningless.
The "uber" was not already going in that direction so the ride is not being shared. It is very deliberately a confusing falsehood so that the Uber taxi company can evade regulations, taxation and employment laws. So much time is wasted on arguing about what the hell they mean and in that time they have done what they want no matter what the public or governments wish for.
Insurance of the right sort existed before Uber it is just that Uber choose to cut that corner in addition to all of the others.