While it may be difficult to analyse, to me it seems bleedin' obvious that you are more likely to hit off with someone you meet through an agency than in a singles bar or public dance, say. At least you are more likely to know some basic facts about the agency date, for example the city where they live, interests, education etc, and you have already seen enough about each other that in agreeing to meet both of you already "agree" that things have potential. They can tell lies of course, but so can someone you meet in a singles bar.
The point about meeting someone in a bar is that you at least know whether you find them attractive. Your internet date might leave you cold, even if they look like their photo.
Obviously there is much more to a relationship than physical attraction, but physical attraction isn't really something that you can work on, it's either there or it isn't.
It often seems to me that meeting people online makes more sense if you're looking for friends, as things like shared interests are more than sufficient for friendship but no indication at all of how romantically compatible you are.
scientifically proven matching system decodes the mystery of compatibility and chemistry
Of course eHarmony couldn't provide scientific evidence to back up it's claims. The claims are so over the top that it would be expected no reasonable person would believe they actually had scientists applying scientific methods to the match-making algorithm. This should have been a clear and obvious case of mere puffery.
Of course, people can be pretty stupid so maybe eHarmony had been defrauding a significant percentage of the British population. God help us all.
Unless you are clearly making a joke (e.g. Red Bull gives you wings) you simply aren't allowed to flat out lie in UK adverts.
Many beauty products use the "scientifically proven" line but they have to have at least some Noddy form of survey to back it up.
Meanwhile, self driving cars will create plenty of business opportunities for "on demand" services and "just in time" deliveries. Need a tile saw for a project? Have one delivered to your front door in 15 minutes, use it for a few hours, and then another vehicle picks it up and returns it.
So if you're currently a tile saw hire company, you sack your drivers, buy/rent some self driving cars and carry on. I don't see where the new jobs come from in this scenario.
Don't forget the programming instructors who will be instructing the hookers on how to write the software to encode their experience into expert systems to upload into the hooker-bots. Plus, who's going to design the domain-specific language and write the compilers? As if there already wasn't a programmer shortage.
Programming is one of the most likely professions to be replaced by machines once you have something even vaguely like true AI.
You'll have robot programmers a long time before robot ballet dancers.
Current forms of capitalism *are* middle road. Perhaps instead of simply saying "capitaism bad", you could lay out an economic system which will function better without the need to change basic human characteristics.
The love of money is only a basic human characteristic for a few psychopaths. The rest of us just want to get by materially. It's called 'growing up and not thinking like a spoiled teenager'.
About time. That herd has been in desperate need of serious culling for centuries now. You want to end pretty much every crisis facing humanity from poverty to ecosystem collapse? End overpopulation.
I'm just guessing, but you're probably exempt from this mighty cull, right?
The big issue with actual monorails, such as the one in Vegas, is that you can't switch tracks easily, can't have Ys, and all the other things that you can do with reasonably standard rail technology.
Oh, that's really informative. I was trying to figure out what were the advantages/disadvantages of monorails, and Wikipedia didn't help at all. I can't see any advantages, though.
I think the main advantage is that they look like a 1930s.SF vision of the future and so you can spend a lot more money on them than boring old trains.
The rich people who live in the suburbs are unlikely to use the train as they can afford to own cars. It's pointless to spend a large amount of money building stations that will never get used.
In most countries, rich people use trains too, because it's often quicker, cheaper and easier than driving. It seems to be a US trait to associate public transport with poverty.
You're confusing a class problem with a race problem. Just as your overlords want you to do.
No, you need to think of Niemoller's "first they came for the socialists" . Page one of the fascist handbook is to give everyone someone to fear and hate and blame for their problems.
Which is also why there are no SJWs screaming that this was a racially motivated killing. But they should, just to reinforce how ridiculous those kind of claims are.
If this had happened in a country where the majority of the population and the majority of cops were black, and the majority of white people were poor or in prison, it may well have been racially motivated.
Slashdot Mirror
While it may be difficult to analyse, to me it seems bleedin' obvious that you are more likely to hit off with someone you meet through an agency than in a singles bar or public dance, say. At least you are more likely to know some basic facts about the agency date, for example the city where they live, interests, education etc, and you have already seen enough about each other that in agreeing to meet both of you already "agree" that things have potential. They can tell lies of course, but so can someone you meet in a singles bar.
The point about meeting someone in a bar is that you at least know whether you find them attractive. Your internet date might leave you cold, even if they look like their photo.
Obviously there is much more to a relationship than physical attraction, but physical attraction isn't really something that you can work on, it's either there or it isn't.
It often seems to me that meeting people online makes more sense if you're looking for friends, as things like shared interests are more than sufficient for friendship but no indication at all of how romantically compatible you are.
scientifically proven matching system decodes the mystery of compatibility and chemistry
Of course eHarmony couldn't provide scientific evidence to back up it's claims. The claims are so over the top that it would be expected no reasonable person would believe they actually had scientists applying scientific methods to the match-making algorithm. This should have been a clear and obvious case of mere puffery.
Of course, people can be pretty stupid so maybe eHarmony had been defrauding a significant percentage of the British population. God help us all.
Unless you are clearly making a joke (e.g. Red Bull gives you wings) you simply aren't allowed to flat out lie in UK adverts.
Many beauty products use the "scientifically proven" line but they have to have at least some Noddy form of survey to back it up.
In other words, the political left says to shut up while the political right says to keep talking.
Is that about right?
No.
It would come down to who the army was loyal to.
In the end, everything comes down to who the army is loyal to.
Eventually, the computer will be better at interpreting what the patient is saying than a human
That is begging the question of whether AI can be as good at being a human as a human.
If they ever can, then they will take over from humans, if only because even doctors need to sleep occasionally.
The person who is working near their peak as a server at McD's is not going to be able to troubleshoot and maintain the robots that took their job.
And even if they could, you aren't going to have one human per robot.
Meanwhile, self driving cars will create plenty of business opportunities for "on demand" services and "just in time" deliveries. Need a tile saw for a project? Have one delivered to your front door in 15 minutes, use it for a few hours, and then another vehicle picks it up and returns it.
So if you're currently a tile saw hire company, you sack your drivers, buy/rent some self driving cars and carry on. I don't see where the new jobs come from in this scenario.
Don't forget the programming instructors who will be instructing the hookers on how to write the software to encode their experience into expert systems to upload into the hooker-bots. Plus, who's going to design the domain-specific language and write the compilers? As if there already wasn't a programmer shortage.
Programming is one of the most likely professions to be replaced by machines once you have something even vaguely like true AI.
You'll have robot programmers a long time before robot ballet dancers.
claiming to be a Windows admin when all they have done is play Call of Duty
Yes, the latter requires far more skill.
*rimshot*
You're making it too easy.
20s: Body is sleek, slim, beautiful, smooth, so are the bodies of everyone else your age. Brain at peak operating capacity.
Did you not go to college?
Current forms of capitalism *are* middle road. Perhaps instead of simply saying "capitaism bad", you could lay out an economic system which will function better without the need to change basic human characteristics.
The love of money is only a basic human characteristic for a few psychopaths. The rest of us just want to get by materially. It's called 'growing up and not thinking like a spoiled teenager'.
About time. That herd has been in desperate need of serious culling for centuries now. You want to end pretty much every crisis facing humanity from poverty to ecosystem collapse? End overpopulation.
I'm just guessing, but you're probably exempt from this mighty cull, right?
The big issue with actual monorails, such as the one in Vegas, is that you can't switch tracks easily, can't have Ys, and all the other things that you can do with reasonably standard rail technology.
Oh, that's really informative. I was trying to figure out what were the advantages/disadvantages of monorails, and Wikipedia didn't help at all. I can't see any advantages, though.
I think the main advantage is that they look like a 1930s.SF vision of the future and so you can spend a lot more money on them than boring old trains.
The rich people who live in the suburbs are unlikely to use the train as they can afford to own cars. It's pointless to spend a large amount of money building stations that will never get used.
In most countries, rich people use trains too, because it's often quicker, cheaper and easier than driving. It seems to be a US trait to associate public transport with poverty.
You're confusing a class problem with a race problem. Just as your overlords want you to do.
No, you need to think of Niemoller's "first they came for the socialists" . Page one of the fascist handbook is to give everyone someone to fear and hate and blame for their problems.
Taxi Drivers would like to have a word with you.
Ah yes, it's the famous International Taxi Conspiracy at work again.
9/11, fake Moon Landings, the Kennedy Assassination, they're all ultimately linked back to the ITC.
The kid was a stupid hajji
What bearing does the fact that he has made the pilgrimage to Mecca have?
FFS, no hostage-taking murderer with a gun is going to open up the front door to the police without a hostage in front of them anyway.
Yes, you'd think that not having a hostage or a gun would have been useful clues that he wasn't a hostage-taker with a gun.
Which is also why there are no SJWs screaming that this was a racially motivated killing. But they should, just to reinforce how ridiculous those kind of claims are.
If this had happened in a country where the majority of the population and the majority of cops were black, and the majority of white people were poor or in prison, it may well have been racially motivated.
It is very much a felony. He used Twitter and his call crossed state boundaries. We can try for a capital offense with this one.
I know people on slashdot hate Twitter, but isn't that a bit harsh?
Thank you for your added information, mine was merely gossip. I stand enlightened on the issue. Thank you.
You appear to be graciously accepting a correction on the internet. What the fuck is wrong with you?
"And then, of course, comes the question of why SWAT-operations are so deadly in the first place."
Are you really having trouble processing that? A SWAT operation is war. Everyone involved is lucky to make it out alive.
No, a SWAT operation is a police operation. If it was an actual war they would just call in an air strike or whatever.
Twitter, is for TWITS.
I've never heard that one before! Happy new year!
I like been able to just step out of car when I reach my destination.
Yeah, that old-fashioned "taking five seconds to give the driver his money" thing is a real deal-breaker.
the first major wave of self driving cars (in about 3-4 years)
I think the approved phrase is "in about five years time" for wildly uncertain but not technically impossible breakthroughs.
Cold fusion, time travel etc are "in less than twenty five years".