Well, I'm sure it cost at least a little more than doing just what they were contracted to do. It's just that we haven't gotten to the point of taking space launches for granted yet.
When we do, some middle manager will whine endlessly about this sort of experimentation.
They're "Extremely unreliable devices based on a mixture of pseudoscientific assumptions and real biometrics". And the CIA isn't a court of law. They're aren't interested in finding the truth beyond a reasonable doubt. They're interested in pressuring you to tell them everything you can.
I'm truly sorry, but an IT union isn't happening, until at least my generational cohort is out of the system.
A. Too many libertarians. B. Too many people convinced of their own prowess and respect C. None of us are at much physical risk D. We get quite a bit more than a living wage, in general
Those factors add up to an insurmountable barrier, even if I personally think the idea is wise.
Checking the methodology section of the paper, they didn't feel it was necessary to include any sort of experimental control.
Now it can be hard to come up with controls for this sort of experiment, when you test the ability of an algorithm that tests for kind of nuanced data, like "where in this block code might there be bugs?", but it should've at least gotten a mention in the conclusion that it wasn't comparative to other methods.
Every time I hear about a terrifyingly invasive means of "improving performance" its targeted at developers. Is it just selection bias, or does the world actually hate us?
Right, but since you're making that argument, I'll engage like the GGP should have:
Why are a couple essays by a dead philosopher the only definitions of communism we should accept?
They were happy to call themselves the communist party. They were happy to declare communist ideals the only acceptable ones. Certainly the things they did were colored by the ideals of communism. Is it reasonable to dismiss allegations that they weren't communist as inherently facile?
I get what you're saying, but their intent wasn't really to avoid acknowledging the awful, awful things the soviet union did.
Their intent was to make the same argument that the soviet union did: that they weren't actually communist, "yet". Now, I can get why you don't want to argue with that point: it's fuzzy, it's impossible to prove either way, and it doesn't actually make a meaningful point about communism. Your response, however, doesn't actually address the argument presented.
1. Extremophiles evolved progressively to more difficult ecosystems. They came from organisms that could manage in chemically unreactive of mostly water/salt water. It's unlikely the precursors to life, like prions or unbound mRNA chains would've "made it" in arsenic lakes or boiling lakes. But some prokaryotes could manage in environments with a little arsenic, and evolution could work its magic.
Like the creationists say, getting something as complex and robust as a modern organism "randomly" would be a bit like a tornado blowing through a junk yard and assembling a car.
2. The utility of radio waves for communication wouldn't hinge much on the physic form of an organism, just something much like sapience.
Because they're still listed as "free" categorically speaking? Which is deceitful to consumers?
I get that as an apple product owner, you have an understanding that your job is to consume on command, but the rest of us actually want to be frugal sometimes.
Yeah, I'm going to back out of this debate and call you a moron, instead. You've just made it very clear that you have a stupid position and that relatively simple definitions have no bearing on how you interpret words.
Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event, including human action, there exist conditions that could cause no other event. Wikipedia
It's the simple assertion of effect derives from cause. This bears absolutely no relationship to teleological philosophical arguments, which construe reality itself to be purpose driven. Outright unrelated concepts. You need to educate yourself.
The difference here is that they're trying to frame convergent evolution in a more falsifiable way, by asserting particular predictions of convergent evolution as measurable hypotheses.
Slashdot Mirror
That T includes the vast majority of degrees given out at community colleges.
I'm kinda surprised you chose C# as:
A. Radically different from java
and
B. "Fine for small projects"
I code for work in C#, and for fun in either python or whatever is topical to the project.
I used to code for work in python, and for fun in C#, and before that any mixture of java, C, assembly, and scripty-fu-fu suited my professors.
No, just a personal impression how much my work computer sucks these days.
Everything persisted, including page file, going through a virtual drive that has a cryptographic algorithm applied both directions is slow as hell.
Well, I'm sure it cost at least a little more than doing just what they were contracted to do. It's just that we haven't gotten to the point of taking space launches for granted yet.
When we do, some middle manager will whine endlessly about this sort of experimentation.
You've got a mistake here.
Polygraphs aren't "baseless pseudoscience"
They're "Extremely unreliable devices based on a mixture of pseudoscientific assumptions and real biometrics". And the CIA isn't a court of law. They're aren't interested in finding the truth beyond a reasonable doubt. They're interested in pressuring you to tell them everything you can.
I'm truly sorry, but an IT union isn't happening, until at least my generational cohort is out of the system.
A. Too many libertarians.
B. Too many people convinced of their own prowess and respect
C. None of us are at much physical risk
D. We get quite a bit more than a living wage, in general
Those factors add up to an insurmountable barrier, even if I personally think the idea is wise.
Checking the methodology section of the paper, they didn't feel it was necessary to include any sort of experimental control.
Now it can be hard to come up with controls for this sort of experiment, when you test the ability of an algorithm that tests for kind of nuanced data, like "where in this block code might there be bugs?", but it should've at least gotten a mention in the conclusion that it wasn't comparative to other methods.
After passing through internet filters, your survey response has been submitted.
For your records, here is your submission:
[X] Yes.
[ ] No.
Every time I hear about a terrifyingly invasive means of "improving performance" its targeted at developers. Is it just selection bias, or does the world actually hate us?
Right, but since you're making that argument, I'll engage like the GGP should have:
Why are a couple essays by a dead philosopher the only definitions of communism we should accept?
They were happy to call themselves the communist party. They were happy to declare communist ideals the only acceptable ones. Certainly the things they did were colored by the ideals of communism. Is it reasonable to dismiss allegations that they weren't communist as inherently facile?
Wait! The old technology is attached to an autonomous quadrotor. Guess I'd better panic.
You forgot the most important part:
"And it may be impossible entirely"
I get what you're saying, but their intent wasn't really to avoid acknowledging the awful, awful things the soviet union did.
Their intent was to make the same argument that the soviet union did: that they weren't actually communist, "yet". Now, I can get why you don't want to argue with that point: it's fuzzy, it's impossible to prove either way, and it doesn't actually make a meaningful point about communism. Your response, however, doesn't actually address the argument presented.
There's a couple things here:
1. Extremophiles evolved progressively to more difficult ecosystems. They came from organisms that could manage in chemically unreactive of mostly water/salt water. It's unlikely the precursors to life, like prions or unbound mRNA chains would've "made it" in arsenic lakes or boiling lakes. But some prokaryotes could manage in environments with a little arsenic, and evolution could work its magic.
Like the creationists say, getting something as complex and robust as a modern organism "randomly" would be a bit like a tornado blowing through a junk yard and assembling a car.
2. The utility of radio waves for communication wouldn't hinge much on the physic form of an organism, just something much like sapience.
It is not a positive reflection on your post that I can't even tell what kind of paranoid delusion you're trying to espouse.
It's only really a concern if the cell runs Linux.
To those modding this Informative, the people modding me flamebait had it right. That's exactly what I was going for.
Because they're still listed as "free" categorically speaking? Which is deceitful to consumers?
I get that as an apple product owner, you have an understanding that your job is to consume on command, but the rest of us actually want to be frugal sometimes.
It's sad that all you've managed to do is restate the implied proposition that they're angry.
We know they're angry. You have zero insight.
While I concur with your opinion, I can't muster the righteous anger you have on the subject. Where does that come from?
Yeah, I'm going to back out of this debate and call you a moron, instead. You've just made it very clear that you have a stupid position and that relatively simple definitions have no bearing on how you interpret words.
This is a "shouting at graffiti" situation.
Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event, including human action, there exist conditions that could cause no other event. Wikipedia
It's the simple assertion of effect derives from cause. This bears absolutely no relationship to teleological philosophical arguments, which construe reality itself to be purpose driven. Outright unrelated concepts. You need to educate yourself.
The difference here is that they're trying to frame convergent evolution in a more falsifiable way, by asserting particular predictions of convergent evolution as measurable hypotheses.
How the hell does any of that imply any sort of teleological argument? There's not even the vaguest hint of design in a word of it.