an insistence we increase border security to keep out undocumented workers
It is likely that increased border security keeps UDWs in rather than out. When border security is loose, UDWs can move back and forth easily, and often leave their families back home in Mexico, where the cost of living is lower. With tighter security, that is not possible, so they all come across and stay.
Before the latest crackdown, net migration from Mexico was negative. More people were returning for improved job opportunities in Mexico.
Your diagnosis if Hawking's mental illness is based on some sort of evidence....?
There is plenty of precedent. It is very common for esteemed experts on a particular topic (such as theoretical physics), to express strong opinions in areas where they have no expertise, and expect the same level of deference to their "wisdom".
Each person will stop existing at some point. The question is whether our descendants will be based on carbon or silicon. I don't see why one is obviously preferable to the other.
Yes, you can create contexts where it is ambiguous.
But "y'all" is never ambiguous, and is superior. Just because you won the civil war doesn't mean y'all get to tell others how to speak English. The South shall rise again!
Not without ambiguity. If you are with a group, and someone asks "Are you going?", it is unclear if you are being asked individually or as a group. But if someone says "Are y'all going?", the meaning is clear.
Yet there'd be little reason to expect any similarity with the DNA codons to protein translations
Yes, they would likely have a different genetic code, and a different set of amino acids. But it is still likely that the fundamentals would be similar: using DNA codons to specify a sequence of amino acids.
If we found an alien world teaming with life much like ours here, it would be shocking if we could eat the fruit there, for example.
As long as we can have sex with their women, who cares about the fruit?
RNA based retroviruses use reverse transcriptase enzymes to produce DNA from their RNA genomes, They then use their hosts' transcriptase to replicate it back into RNA. They cannot replicate without using DNA.
Prions would be a better example of "life without DNA", except they also require a host, and most biologists would not consider them to be "life".
That's just a wild guess on your part. Right now, we have no reason to assume such a thing.
DNA consists of commonly available ingredients, can guide its own self-assembly, is stable, and nucleotides form abiotically. No other known material has all of these characteristics. There are retroviruses that use RNA, and protein based prions, but neither of these has evolved beyond being parasites of DNA based life. If another mechanisms was more viable for the basis of life, then why have none displaced DNA on earth, despite 4 billion years of opportunities?
When we find life elsewhere in the Universe, I think it is very likely it will be DNA based.
So every one of your "73 predictions" used 1977 as a baseline? Either you found a whole lot of 40 year old "models", or you are full of bullcrap. It is hard to tell since of the 73, exactly this many are actually named or cited: 0.
Do you really think there's that much demand for MacOS these days?
Apple has about 7.5% of the PC (desktop+laptop) market. That is about half of their peak around 1989 by market share, but way more units sold because the market today is so much bigger. Nearly all of these are laptops, since Apple has mostly abandoned the desktop.
people buy Mac's mostly because they're Apple people, or perceive it as some kind of status thing.
I use a Macbook because MacOS is Unix that "just works".
How is this for you?? Al Gore claimed that coastal cities would be 20 feet under water in the near future in his movie 'An Inconvenient Truth'
A politician spouting off his opinion is not a "scientific model".
Can you point to any climate model, peer reviewed and published, that predicted a 10 foot ocean rise by 2017? No? How about a one foot rise by 2020? No? Anything?
There is another problem: Moore's Law. Semiconductors have improved exponentially, improving computing power a million-fold over my lifetime. So people, and perhaps especially nerds, have come to expect a similar rate of improvement in other fields. But that almost never happens[1]. Batteries have dramatically improved over the last 15 years, through steady incremental progress. But still very slowly compared to improvements in computing power, thus giving the illusion of a lack of progress.
1: Some technologies actually DO progress even faster than Moore's law. Two that I can think of: Hard disk drive capacity, and the cost of DNA sequencing.
age is relevant because the concept and theory involved was already studied to exhaustion.
Not true at all. Backprop dates back to 1986. Autoencoding was introduced in 2006. GANs were first used in 2014. Perhaps even more importantly, fast parallel computing with cheap GPUs and mountains of training data were only recently available.
While these approaches don't need bilingual corpora, they still need big monolingual corpora.
Except that we have terabytes of unstructured and unlabeled monolingual text. You could train it on Wikipedia pages. In fact, there is an entire library of congress of data in... the library of congress.
Slashdot Mirror
an insistence we increase border security to keep out undocumented workers
It is likely that increased border security keeps UDWs in rather than out. When border security is loose, UDWs can move back and forth easily, and often leave their families back home in Mexico, where the cost of living is lower. With tighter security, that is not possible, so they all come across and stay.
Before the latest crackdown, net migration from Mexico was negative. More people were returning for improved job opportunities in Mexico.
As a Canadian, I can already tell you that it will never work. Up north, we use metric electricity.
Everyone uses metric electricity. Amps, Volts, and Watts are all metric units.
In America, large electric motors are sometimes rated by horsepower instead of watts, but even that is increasingly uncommon.
Bulk lithium batteries are usually shipped at about 30% charge.
Lower charge is bad for the battery. High charge is not good for the battery either, and is also a fire danger.
Explain where it says that you have an entitlement to the content that you want simply by virtue of wanting it
Explain how anyone is harmed when a "pirate" torrents a movie that they otherwise would not have watched at all.
Disclaimer: I don't pirate movies, but my kids do it all the time, even for movies they could watch for free with Amazon Prime.
Your diagnosis if Hawking's mental illness is based on some sort of evidence....?
There is plenty of precedent. It is very common for esteemed experts on a particular topic (such as theoretical physics), to express strong opinions in areas where they have no expertise, and expect the same level of deference to their "wisdom".
Each person will stop existing at some point. The question is whether our descendants will be based on carbon or silicon. I don't see why one is obviously preferable to the other.
In Australian bogan, y'all is youse, as in "I love youse all".>/p>
We use "youse" in America too. I have heard it in New Jersey and in Philadelphia.
Yes, you can create contexts where it is ambiguous.
But "y'all" is never ambiguous, and is superior. Just because you won the civil war doesn't mean y'all get to tell others how to speak English. The South shall rise again!
"You" used to be plural,
It still can be.
Not without ambiguity. If you are with a group, and someone asks "Are you going?", it is unclear if you are being asked individually or as a group. But if someone says "Are y'all going?", the meaning is clear.
There is a proper way to say something completely idiotic, like "y'all".
"Y'all" is a useful word and used daily by millions of people. What is idiotic is a language without a "standard" second person plural pronoun.
"You" used to be plural, while "thou" was singular. That is why we still write "you are" rather than "you is".
Yet there'd be little reason to expect any similarity with the DNA codons to protein translations
Yes, they would likely have a different genetic code, and a different set of amino acids. But it is still likely that the fundamentals would be similar: using DNA codons to specify a sequence of amino acids.
If we found an alien world teaming with life much like ours here, it would be shocking if we could eat the fruit there, for example.
As long as we can have sex with their women, who cares about the fruit?
It is called an RNA virus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
RNA based retroviruses use reverse transcriptase enzymes to produce DNA from their RNA genomes, They then use their hosts' transcriptase to replicate it back into RNA. They cannot replicate without using DNA.
Prions would be a better example of "life without DNA", except they also require a host, and most biologists would not consider them to be "life".
That's just a wild guess on your part. Right now, we have no reason to assume such a thing.
DNA consists of commonly available ingredients, can guide its own self-assembly, is stable, and nucleotides form abiotically. No other known material has all of these characteristics. There are retroviruses that use RNA, and protein based prions, but neither of these has evolved beyond being parasites of DNA based life. If another mechanisms was more viable for the basis of life, then why have none displaced DNA on earth, despite 4 billion years of opportunities?
When we find life elsewhere in the Universe, I think it is very likely it will be DNA based.
Just because it wasn't there during the launch it doesn't mean it didn't come from Earth.
Just because they thought it wasn't there at launch doesn't mean it wasn't there at launch.
I started in engineering 30 years ago. I'd say that almost 100% of what engineers did back then is gone.
Indeed. I am an engineer, and 35 years ago I sat at my desk and wrote Fortran. Today I sit at my desk and write C++.
The numbers don't match the rhetoric. TFA says the budget is $150M. That is barely enough to build one small office building.
The truth
So every one of your "73 predictions" used 1977 as a baseline? Either you found a whole lot of 40 year old "models", or you are full of bullcrap. It is hard to tell since of the 73, exactly this many are actually named or cited: 0.
Do you really think there's that much demand for MacOS these days?
Apple has about 7.5% of the PC (desktop+laptop) market. That is about half of their peak around 1989 by market share, but way more units sold because the market today is so much bigger. Nearly all of these are laptops, since Apple has mostly abandoned the desktop.
people buy Mac's mostly because they're Apple people, or perceive it as some kind of status thing.
I use a Macbook because MacOS is Unix that "just works".
How does one go about it on a mac?
You don't. Bitcoins are mined on ASICs using wholesale electricity costing 3 to 4 cents per kwhr. Anything less, and you are not going to break even.
And it's in a cold room that could use the heat.
Buy a sweater.
The program is useless if you have to predetermine the correct answer for every possible input, and the evaluation is useless if you do anything less.
Bullcrap. A pocket calculator has a predetermined correct answer for every possible input. That does not make it "useless".
So can "tin whiskers". We need to be allowed to inspect the hardware too.
No we don't. If the software is open, then the defense can run it on their own hardware, and should get an identical result.
How is this for you?? Al Gore claimed that coastal cities would be 20 feet under water in the near future in his movie 'An Inconvenient Truth'
A politician spouting off his opinion is not a "scientific model".
Can you point to any climate model, peer reviewed and published, that predicted a 10 foot ocean rise by 2017? No? How about a one foot rise by 2020? No? Anything?
There is another problem: Moore's Law. Semiconductors have improved exponentially, improving computing power a million-fold over my lifetime. So people, and perhaps especially nerds, have come to expect a similar rate of improvement in other fields. But that almost never happens[1]. Batteries have dramatically improved over the last 15 years, through steady incremental progress. But still very slowly compared to improvements in computing power, thus giving the illusion of a lack of progress.
1: Some technologies actually DO progress even faster than Moore's law. Two that I can think of: Hard disk drive capacity, and the cost of DNA sequencing.
age is relevant because the concept and theory involved was already studied to exhaustion.
Not true at all. Backprop dates back to 1986. Autoencoding was introduced in 2006. GANs were first used in 2014. Perhaps even more importantly, fast parallel computing with cheap GPUs and mountains of training data were only recently available.
While these approaches don't need bilingual corpora, they still need big monolingual corpora.
Except that we have terabytes of unstructured and unlabeled monolingual text. You could train it on Wikipedia pages. In fact, there is an entire library of congress of data in ... the library of congress.