No, he's accountable to those who vote or are active in local politics. Generally the worst people to make decisions since everyone who is more knowledgeable (or sane) is busy doing other things.
Your implicit message that ones math ability is a fuction of their time in school is closed minded, and does not account for the fact that the most brilliant at math, were probably that way before they ever got to college.
Which means jack shit unless they have studied mathematics in absurd detail and spent an absurd amount of time on it. Being good at "math" and being good at mathematics are two very different things. I learned calculus when I was 11 and I, comparatively, suck at mathematics. Whole different ball game once you get to graduate level math and above. Then you still need to spend years doing that, as in proving theorems and so on, to have the right mental framework and mindset.
Even then potential talent without extensive knowledge is useless. Practical mathematics is about knowing what theorem to apply at what time. Someone specializing in one sub-branch of mathematics would need to spend a decent amount of time to be proficient in a different sub-branch. There's a common foundation but even that needs to be learned.
Consider Einstein who came up wth the theory of relativity while working in a patent office.
Honestly, I've never heard the job prospects as being good from bio-stats and I did that in college. Looking at how much pharmaceutics companies are willing to pay does nothing to change my views. Inexpensive grunts is what I see.
You're better off becoming a data analyst or data scientist at pretty much any company out there. Seriously, everyone is on crack about data and big data nowadays. Learn hadoop and you're set for the next 5 years minimum.
Unless you don't quiet kill it with the hit and then it's injured barely living body falls into a nook as it slowly twitches to death. After it spend a grueling marathon of trying to escape the massive object trying to squash it.
By your argument a neural network running on my computer also feels "pain" and our collective computer systems are the worst set of torturers to have ever existed.
So you're okay with torturing something as long as your end goal is to kill it? Because all those things are closer to torture than what they did in this experiment.
First of all tons of companies fund research. Lots of papers come out of them of all kinds and plenty more that is never published.
Second of all Microsoft is actually known for being a black hole of research. Researchers go in and almost nothing comes out. They hire people just so their competitors can't hire them. They may do a few demos but nothing commercial comes from them.
Your logic is weak. They don't care about him or what he'll do. Look what every single article about this says: the guys life was destroyed. That was the message, "You mess with us and we'll destroy your life, enjoy picking up the pieces."
That is the message they sent to all the other people who may have considered talking out against the government. "Do so at your own peril, this is not a free society, step out of line and we'll bash your knees in."
Maybe he'll win some money or maybe he won't but the fear has been spread. Most people won't wish to spend 2+ years in hell (or worse, the government will learn from this) and losing everything they value (especially if they have kids).
The prosecutors weren't inept. They knew exactly what they were doing and have managed to pull it off brilliantly.
They wanted to make an example of him and scare anyone else from even thinking about talking against the government.
They didn't need to win, they just needed to drag things out and hurt the guy as much as possible. The more inept the acted the better off they could do that.
Hahahahaha. Oh god, you're hilarious, you really are. There's so many idiots like you out there that the law profession is saturated through and through.
Here's the thing, there are no enlightened few. There's just a few equally irrational people whose irrationality makes them think they are rational and all knowing.
Indeed, but your argument was a straw man too. You don't need to cover the planet in wind farms for it to affect the climate.
I replied to a post that said there was a local 1 degree change and extrapolated that into a global 1 degree change. I pointed out why that was idiotic. A global change of 0.01 degrees isn't particularly large or important. Our parking lots, highways and cities probably cause more than that.
and the scalability of green energy systems is a concern.
Which has nothing to do with the topic and in fact is a reason why this topic is a non-issue. That was my point. We physically can't scale wind power enough to cause global temperature changes.
Eventually we're going to have to deal with demand and stop breeding so much.
Go look at some population projections, population size is not projected to be be an issue. Go look at the energy use of first and third world nations then compare it to that population growth, that is the issue.
Eventually we'll either move to more efficient uses of energy, go nuclear and/or invent fusion. It should be noted that energy usage cannot increase forever even with unlimited energy since at some point the waste heat alone would cook the planet (but we're not at that point yet) .
Which could mean that a young person will stupidly take the first job offered while an older person will wisely shop around? Or maybe that an older person has stricter job requirements (such as not moving, good school district, spouse's job, etc, etc.) which inherently make it more difficult to find a job irrespective of age.
You shouldn't have loyalty to the company. You should have loyalty to your coworkers and bosses if they deserve it (read: if you think they'll ever be able to send a job your way). If you have no loyalty whatsoever then no one will ever send a job your way and a lot of good jobs are filled that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Why did the US spend billions upon billions to go to the moon? Why did we strive so hard to beat the Soviets there?
The answer to those are the same reason the Chinese are doing it alone.
Don't bother, he's clearly either a troll or delusional. It's like trying to explain to a religious fanatic that the earth isn't 10k years old.
No, he's accountable to those who vote or are active in local politics. Generally the worst people to make decisions since everyone who is more knowledgeable (or sane) is busy doing other things.
The Saturn V is now in a lovely enclosure fully restored.
Oddly enough the same people who complained about it being left outside to rot complain about it now being covered up in a warehouse.
Your implicit message that ones math ability is a fuction of their time in school is closed minded, and does not account for the fact that the most brilliant at math, were probably that way before they ever got to college.
Which means jack shit unless they have studied mathematics in absurd detail and spent an absurd amount of time on it. Being good at "math" and being good at mathematics are two very different things. I learned calculus when I was 11 and I, comparatively, suck at mathematics. Whole different ball game once you get to graduate level math and above. Then you still need to spend years doing that, as in proving theorems and so on, to have the right mental framework and mindset.
Even then potential talent without extensive knowledge is useless. Practical mathematics is about knowing what theorem to apply at what time. Someone specializing in one sub-branch of mathematics would need to spend a decent amount of time to be proficient in a different sub-branch. There's a common foundation but even that needs to be learned.
Consider Einstein who came up wth the theory of relativity while working in a patent office.
Which he did after graduating from college.
Honestly, I've never heard the job prospects as being good from bio-stats and I did that in college. Looking at how much pharmaceutics companies are willing to pay does nothing to change my views. Inexpensive grunts is what I see.
You're better off becoming a data analyst or data scientist at pretty much any company out there. Seriously, everyone is on crack about data and big data nowadays. Learn hadoop and you're set for the next 5 years minimum.
Unless you don't quiet kill it with the hit and then it's injured barely living body falls into a nook as it slowly twitches to death. After it spend a grueling marathon of trying to escape the massive object trying to squash it.
Cockroaches are not humans.
By your argument a neural network running on my computer also feels "pain" and our collective computer systems are the worst set of torturers to have ever existed.
So you're okay with torturing something as long as your end goal is to kill it? Because all those things are closer to torture than what they did in this experiment.
All of which have patents attached to them ensuring that they never become too useful to anyone.
First of all tons of companies fund research. Lots of papers come out of them of all kinds and plenty more that is never published.
Second of all Microsoft is actually known for being a black hole of research. Researchers go in and almost nothing comes out. They hire people just so their competitors can't hire them. They may do a few demos but nothing commercial comes from them.
Your logic is weak. They don't care about him or what he'll do. Look what every single article about this says: the guys life was destroyed. That was the message, "You mess with us and we'll destroy your life, enjoy picking up the pieces."
That is the message they sent to all the other people who may have considered talking out against the government. "Do so at your own peril, this is not a free society, step out of line and we'll bash your knees in."
Maybe he'll win some money or maybe he won't but the fear has been spread. Most people won't wish to spend 2+ years in hell (or worse, the government will learn from this) and losing everything they value (especially if they have kids).
The prosecutors weren't inept. They knew exactly what they were doing and have managed to pull it off brilliantly.
They wanted to make an example of him and scare anyone else from even thinking about talking against the government.
They didn't need to win, they just needed to drag things out and hurt the guy as much as possible. The more inept the acted the better off they could do that.
Sounds like a DARPA grant idea in the making.
Also, to be pointlessly pedantic, you'd be increasing the heat output by 900% not 90%.
Hahahahaha. Oh god, you're hilarious, you really are. There's so many idiots like you out there that the law profession is saturated through and through.
How do you think you train a search algorithm? Ask magic fairies to do it for you?
Hint: You hire people to do editorial review of searches and train on that.
Here's the thing, there are no enlightened few. There's just a few equally irrational people whose irrationality makes them think they are rational and all knowing.
Indeed, but your argument was a straw man too. You don't need to cover the planet in wind farms for it to affect the climate.
I replied to a post that said there was a local 1 degree change and extrapolated that into a global 1 degree change. I pointed out why that was idiotic. A global change of 0.01 degrees isn't particularly large or important. Our parking lots, highways and cities probably cause more than that.
and the scalability of green energy systems is a concern.
Which has nothing to do with the topic and in fact is a reason why this topic is a non-issue. That was my point. We physically can't scale wind power enough to cause global temperature changes.
Eventually we're going to have to deal with demand and stop breeding so much.
Go look at some population projections, population size is not projected to be be an issue.
Go look at the energy use of first and third world nations then compare it to that population growth, that is the issue.
Eventually we'll either move to more efficient uses of energy, go nuclear and/or invent fusion. It should be noted that energy usage cannot increase forever even with unlimited energy since at some point the waste heat alone would cook the planet (but we're not at that point yet) .
First of all, it's downright impossible to do what I described since wind is not uniform over the whole planet.
Second of all, that's a straw man argument, there's plenty of other source of green energy.
So there's going to be a wind farm on every single square mile of land? Including the ocean?
No? Then you're not going to have a global change of one degree.
If wherever you are requires a licence for fixing computers then yes you did. I don't know of any places that do.
Because it also means the company has no idea who to hire and keeps hiring morons.
You must have read a different article than me. The one I read had nothing but anecdotes, unsubstantiated claims and one piece of very dubious data.
So what was your point again?
Which could mean that a young person will stupidly take the first job offered while an older person will wisely shop around? Or maybe that an older person has stricter job requirements (such as not moving, good school district, spouse's job, etc, etc.) which inherently make it more difficult to find a job irrespective of age.
You shouldn't have loyalty to the company. You should have loyalty to your coworkers and bosses if they deserve it (read: if you think they'll ever be able to send a job your way). If you have no loyalty whatsoever then no one will ever send a job your way and a lot of good jobs are filled that way.