Or is there a problem pointing to where it is wrong and illustrating that?
Yes, there is a very big problem with that. People pay attention to slick films peddling easy and absolute answers. They don't pay near as much attention to cautionary statements about a lack of correlation in articles published in boring scientific journals.
Lies have a big advantage over the truth. They can be simple, clean, and confident, and concise enough to fit on a bumper sticker or a tweet. The truth is always messy, complicated, and couched in doubt. After all, we can't prove that vaccines don't cause autism, the best we can do is say that there is no evidence for that.
People..... PLEASE... just destroy all those stupid records and data you have policy/access to... all they do is turn you into the DEVIL marking other innocents with your sin.
Except in this case, where the records led to the exoneration of an innocent man.
Understanding requires that you construct a model relating multiple streams of input
No, that is not "required". Intelligence is a characteristic of behavior. If a system behaves intelligently, then it is intelligent. Internal mechanism is irrelevant.
What if crime rates have dropped dramatically because the FBI budget has doubled?
That is unlikely. On a state-by-state basis, spending on law enforcement has been negatively correlated with crime reduction. More cops and more prisons leads to more crime (or at least less of a decline). The effect is especially perverse for teenagers. Once a kid is sucked into the juvenile justice system, they are on the fast-track to a life of crime. If a teenager commits a minor crime, and gets away with it, or is let off with a warning, they are less likely to commit future crimes than if they are arrested and their life is turned upside down.
The solution to over-policing is fewer police and less spending on law enforcement. When you see an ad for a politician bragging about endorsements from the police union and the prison guard union, you should vote for someone else.
On the other hand, why the hell is the FBI bothering with these people?
Because they have nothing better to do. In the last 20 years, crime rates in America have dropped dramatically, yet the FBI budget has doubled. They are over funded and over staffed, and they don't have enough real work to do.
There are two alternative solutions: 1. Criminalize more activities 2. Cut their budget So far we have been opting for #1.
There are other reasons not to be too overt with your political opinions. I have a sister, living in Texas, who has at least a dozen lefty stickers on her car, and it has been vandalized multiple times.
Sure, why not? This is all just theater anyway. These indictments will have no effect whatsoever, since the indicted Iranians are living in Iran and not subject to American jurisdiction. If anything, they are probably happy to be indicted, since it means their hard work is being recognized, they will now be lauded as heroes, and maybe they will even be able to get a date (or an arranged marriage).
I was wondering how someone with that small of a block could force this
They can't "force" it. They have to get another 48% of the shareholders to agree with them. They might be able to. Yahoo has been adrift and rudderless for years. The company is worth less than their assets. I live in San Jose, and several of my neighbors work for Yahoo. They are not demoralized about the direction of the company, they are demoralized because the company has no direction. I can't think of a single new Yahoo service, or a single existing service that has improved in the last decade.
What I meant: Women in tech do not spend more time with their families than women who are not in tech. Men in tech do spend less time with their families than men who are not in tech. At least that is a common perception.
I think he meant hours in total. e.g if you and I both work for $100 per hour...
Very few programmers are paid by the hour. They are mostly on salary. I can't see how these researchers can correct for "number of hours worked" since they do not have access to that information. Nobody keeps a publicly available database of who is working late, or coming in on the weekends. That data doesn't exist.
It doesn't say specifically that they adjusted for hours worked, but that's one of the standard ones, so I'd expect it.
How would they adjust for it? My company doesn't keep a database of who is working late at night, and even if we did, these researchers wouldn't have access to it.
are women in programming putting a greater emphasis on family than women in other fields? Of course not.
I don't think women in tech spend more time with their families. But I do think that men in tech spend less time with their families, or don't have families.
if they were to announce the future pricing now it might even be worth trying.
Keep in mind that the VR API used to be open, then they closed it, screwing anyone using it. Now they are opening it up again "for free", but it will supposedly be yanked away yet again, when/if they finally decide on the pricing. Google has a terrible record of supporting their products. You would be foolish to rely on this API if you have any alternative.
your noise is going to go down when you throw out the lower quality data.
Except that if you have an algorithm for recognizing "lower quality data" then you can exclude that data from your search results. So it is not going to affect your results.
Even with good search tools, signal to noise ratio is still important.
The signal to noise ratio doesn't change when you merely use less data. The whole point of good search tools is to extract the signal from the data, and filter out the noise. If you believe that "less data, but better data" is the answer, then you should also believe that whatever algorithm you use to decide which data are "better" during the collection phase, can also be used to filter the existing data during the analysis. So collecting less data would not help.
The NSA may be wasting resources by collecting too much data, but TFA doesn't make a very good argument for that. Much of what the NSA collects is not used to predict, but to retroactively analyse events, so the perps can be identified.
I use an Intel 4004, with an RS232 port for input, and a blinking LED for output. I power it with a lead acid battery, using a zener diode to step down the voltage. I works as well as the day I bought it back in 1971.
Or do you imagine Facebook is making millions from that lucrative advertizing market for poor Angolans?
Angola is not so poor. It is one of the most prosperous countries in Africa, and the economy is growing rapidly. Unfortunately, it has a repressive government and high levels of inequality. There is plenty of money to be made advertising to the poor.
Just imagine that the economy collapses, similar to 2008, but without the bailout.
Your money isn't worth anything.
The effect of the bailout and QE was to lower the value of money. They were designed, in part, to prevent a deflationary cycle. So, "without the bailout" your money would be worth more.
They were shipped long distance by train so that they could be manufactured in the district of someone important to funding.
That "someone" was Senator Jake Garn of Utah, who chaired the appropriation committee for NASA's funding. He not only had the SRBs made in Utah, but he also got himself a ride on the Space Shuttle at a cost of tens of million to the taxpayers, despite being completely unqualified and spending near all his time in space puking from motion sickness.
Make the SRBs on-site and avoid the need for O-rings entirely.
They did not have to be made on-site. They could have been made in a single piece anywhere on the east or gulf coast and moved to the launch site by barge using the Intercoastal Waterway. That was the original plan, before Senator Garn used his chairmanship to have construction shifted to Utah, increasing the cost, and decreasing the structural integrity.
Why is is that they can get away with charging for long distance telephone service as a separate line item at all?
Because people have no choice. All the carriers charge the fees. In theory, these charges would be competed away as they lowered prices to get or protect market share. But all the carriers have significant share ownership from the same investment banks and mutual funds, these organizations control many board seats, and they are opposed to competitive practices which would reduce aggregate profit.
Slashdot Mirror
Or is there a problem pointing to where it is wrong and illustrating that?
Yes, there is a very big problem with that. People pay attention to slick films peddling easy and absolute answers. They don't pay near as much attention to cautionary statements about a lack of correlation in articles published in boring scientific journals.
Lies have a big advantage over the truth. They can be simple, clean, and confident, and concise enough to fit on a bumper sticker or a tweet. The truth is always messy, complicated, and couched in doubt. After all, we can't prove that vaccines don't cause autism, the best we can do is say that there is no evidence for that.
People..... PLEASE... just destroy all those stupid records and data you have policy/access to...
all they do is turn you into the DEVIL marking other innocents with your sin.
Except in this case, where the records led to the exoneration of an innocent man.
Understanding requires that you construct a model relating multiple streams of input
No, that is not "required". Intelligence is a characteristic of behavior. If a system behaves intelligently, then it is intelligent. Internal mechanism is irrelevant.
Personally I can't wait until we get star wars style holoconferencing though.
The killer feature will be remotely choking people: "You have failed me for the last time, Admiral."
... loud self-righteous assholes .. . I'm not saying that your sister necessarily fits into that category ...
She fits.
What if crime rates have dropped dramatically because the FBI budget has doubled?
That is unlikely. On a state-by-state basis, spending on law enforcement has been negatively correlated with crime reduction. More cops and more prisons leads to more crime (or at least less of a decline). The effect is especially perverse for teenagers. Once a kid is sucked into the juvenile justice system, they are on the fast-track to a life of crime. If a teenager commits a minor crime, and gets away with it, or is let off with a warning, they are less likely to commit future crimes than if they are arrested and their life is turned upside down.
The solution to over-policing is fewer police and less spending on law enforcement. When you see an ad for a politician bragging about endorsements from the police union and the prison guard union, you should vote for someone else.
On the other hand, why the hell is the FBI bothering with these people?
Because they have nothing better to do. In the last 20 years, crime rates in America have dropped dramatically, yet the FBI budget has doubled. They are over funded and over staffed, and they don't have enough real work to do.
There are two alternative solutions:
1. Criminalize more activities
2. Cut their budget
So far we have been opting for #1.
There are other reasons not to be too overt with your political opinions. I have a sister, living in Texas, who has at least a dozen lefty stickers on her car, and it has been vandalized multiple times.
I assume Iran can now indict some NSA employees?
Sure, why not? This is all just theater anyway. These indictments will have no effect whatsoever, since the indicted Iranians are living in Iran and not subject to American jurisdiction. If anything, they are probably happy to be indicted, since it means their hard work is being recognized, they will now be lauded as heroes, and maybe they will even be able to get a date (or an arranged marriage).
I was wondering how someone with that small of a block could force this
They can't "force" it. They have to get another 48% of the shareholders to agree with them. They might be able to. Yahoo has been adrift and rudderless for years. The company is worth less than their assets. I live in San Jose, and several of my neighbors work for Yahoo. They are not demoralized about the direction of the company, they are demoralized because the company has no direction. I can't think of a single new Yahoo service, or a single existing service that has improved in the last decade.
That's a contradiction.
What I meant: Women in tech do not spend more time with their families than women who are not in tech. Men in tech do spend less time with their families than men who are not in tech. At least that is a common perception.
I think he meant hours in total. e.g if you and I both work for $100 per hour ...
Very few programmers are paid by the hour. They are mostly on salary. I can't see how these researchers can correct for "number of hours worked" since they do not have access to that information. Nobody keeps a publicly available database of who is working late, or coming in on the weekends. That data doesn't exist.
It doesn't say specifically that they adjusted for hours worked, but that's one of the standard ones, so I'd expect it.
How would they adjust for it? My company doesn't keep a database of who is working late at night, and even if we did, these researchers wouldn't have access to it.
are women in programming putting a greater emphasis on family than women in other fields? Of course not.
I don't think women in tech spend more time with their families. But I do think that men in tech spend less time with their families, or don't have families.
if they were to announce the future pricing now it might even be worth trying.
Keep in mind that the VR API used to be open, then they closed it, screwing anyone using it. Now they are opening it up again "for free", but it will supposedly be yanked away yet again, when/if they finally decide on the pricing. Google has a terrible record of supporting their products. You would be foolish to rely on this API if you have any alternative.
Or come close to it.
They don't need to weasel out of it. $72+$21+$11 million is nothing. That is a rounding error on one month of Exelon's revenue.
No gift is worth a reduction in competition.
This doesn't reduce competition, because the service areas don't overlap. Each company is already a local monopoly.
your noise is going to go down when you throw out the lower quality data.
Except that if you have an algorithm for recognizing "lower quality data" then you can exclude that data from your search results. So it is not going to affect your results.
Red Hat also received plenty of VC money, so I don't know why the summary brings that up ... and VC money is not "earnings", it is equity.
Even with good search tools, signal to noise ratio is still important.
The signal to noise ratio doesn't change when you merely use less data. The whole point of good search tools is to extract the signal from the data, and filter out the noise. If you believe that "less data, but better data" is the answer, then you should also believe that whatever algorithm you use to decide which data are "better" during the collection phase, can also be used to filter the existing data during the analysis. So collecting less data would not help.
The NSA may be wasting resources by collecting too much data, but TFA doesn't make a very good argument for that. Much of what the NSA collects is not used to predict, but to retroactively analyse events, so the perps can be identified.
And the US desert southwest is about as good as it gets.
Much of central and western China gets as much sun as the American SW, and the sun is often brighter because of the higher altitude.
Here is a map of where China's solar plants are actually located. Most of them are sited where the people are, rather than in the sunniest locations.
I use an Intel 4004, with an RS232 port for input, and a blinking LED for output. I power it with a lead acid battery, using a zener diode to step down the voltage. I works as well as the day I bought it back in 1971.
Or do you imagine Facebook is making millions from that lucrative advertizing market for poor Angolans?
Angola is not so poor. It is one of the most prosperous countries in Africa, and the economy is growing rapidly. Unfortunately, it has a repressive government and high levels of inequality. There is plenty of money to be made advertising to the poor.
So a bakery giving its products for free to the poor is considered a "blockage" ... ?
Poor analogy. Facebook is not giving away their product. The users are the product.
I have mixed feelings about Facebook Free Basics, and I am not sure if it is good or bad, but it certainly isn't comparable to free bread.
Just imagine that the economy collapses, similar to 2008, but without the bailout.
Your money isn't worth anything.
The effect of the bailout and QE was to lower the value of money. They were designed, in part, to prevent a deflationary cycle. So, "without the bailout" your money would be worth more.
They were shipped long distance by train so that they could be manufactured in the district of someone important to funding.
That "someone" was Senator Jake Garn of Utah, who chaired the appropriation committee for NASA's funding. He not only had the SRBs made in Utah, but he also got himself a ride on the Space Shuttle at a cost of tens of million to the taxpayers, despite being completely unqualified and spending near all his time in space puking from motion sickness.
Make the SRBs on-site and avoid the need for O-rings entirely.
They did not have to be made on-site. They could have been made in a single piece anywhere on the east or gulf coast and moved to the launch site by barge using the Intercoastal Waterway. That was the original plan, before Senator Garn used his chairmanship to have construction shifted to Utah, increasing the cost, and decreasing the structural integrity.
Why is is that they can get away with charging for long distance telephone service as a separate line item at all?
Because people have no choice. All the carriers charge the fees. In theory, these charges would be competed away as they lowered prices to get or protect market share. But all the carriers have significant share ownership from the same investment banks and mutual funds, these organizations control many board seats, and they are opposed to competitive practices which would reduce aggregate profit.