From a debugging perspective, it's probably much easier to unit test and fine-tune the algorithms based on the raw speech as then at least the human developer can listen to the audio and compare it to the produced output.
And, of course, in my experience, once such debug capabilities are turned on, there's no impetus later in the cycle to turn them off. I'm just as guilty in that regard as anyone else I know, sometimes probably worse as I end up turning on even more debug information later in the cycle than we had at the beginning.
Remind me again why I want to solve this problem. Yes, I know I could find my password. I don't care. But since that's on my home PC, and I'm standing in front of a TSA agent, at that point, it's too late.
Really? 5-digit UID and you don't get simple spatial awareness?
That would require me to be at home. Which is orthogonal to being in front of a US TSA agent. I can't do both at the same time. And I sure as hell am not going to do that to all my passwords before going on a trip to the US just to prep for this BOHICA.
That may work for you. For me, though, unfortunately, both my manager and my star developer are Indian. I can't just hang up on an Indian accent.:) Then again, I can recognise their voices pretty easily by now, so any other Indian accent, sure.:)
I don't know if it's a general rule for everyone, but I got called racist for opposing Obama's socialist tendencies in 2008 before he even became president, and was still campaigning. I got it regularly, and I don't care about the colour of his skin (any more than I care about the orange-tinge of Trump's skin).
I saw it so often that I can't believe anyone couldn't see it. In fact, if anything, it's that sort of knee-jerk name-calling of anyone who didn't fully embrace the Obama/Clinton progressive line that most likely cost HRC the election. Sure, people on the coasts didn't mind because they were intelligent enough and progressive enough to vote for Obama purely on the colour of his skin, or Clinton on the gender she identifies as, and were sorry for all their unearned privilege. But the people in the flyover states, even ones that traditionally have been Democrat strongholds, have apparently tired of this "hyperbole and untrue" experience. Except it's neither hyperbole nor untrue.
Personally, I'd rather Trump wasn't president. I suspect many, if not most, people who voted for Trump also would rather he wasn't president. However, when his opponent drops into name calling ("deplorables" likely did as much as anything to sink Clinton's campaign), most didn't see much choice.
I'm just hoping he's a one-term president at this point. But if the Democrats continue to blame everyone but themselves for their loss, I'm not holding my breath.
In order to take it to court, I imagine one must have standing to sue. A single elector may have trouble proving standing, as their one vote, by itself, is unlikely to tilt the election. However, there's no disputing (I think) that Clinton would suffer irreparable harm, assuming the results are tampered. She has standing. The academics do not.
To disclaim bias, I say this happy that Clinton did not win. (But not happy that Trump won... sigh) As I've said before, I'd rather honesty and transparency than fraud, regardless of what that brings to light. If Clinton should have been the legal winner of those college votes, then she should have them, and should sue to get that done. Though I can understand a reluctance - undermining the fiction of votes counting also undermines the validity of future Democrat presidents, not just the current Republican president-elect, and her chances of winning are likely quite low. There's little upside to the challenge for her, and great downside for her party.
Damnit, I read the question backwards. I read it as "should reporters report on stuff that may have come from illegal sources" isntead of "should reporters ignore stuff that came from illegal sources." My bad.
As long as what they report on is true and unbiased, yes. I don't care if it's on the HRC campaign or the Trump campaign, as long as it is objectively true. I would rather the politicians were honest and transparent, and if it takes a foreign power to force it, I have a hard time complaining.
Leave the pontificating to the pundits. Journalists should merely report the truth.
And, no, I don't care for Hillary "embarrassing" herself. That may be truthful, but it's not any more germane to the discussion than Trump embarrassing himself (even though that gets reported on as well on a regular basis - we don't need Russian interference to see it). The juicy bits, such as it were, would be any case of unethical and/or illegal behaviour. I haven't really followed the leaks, so I don't know if there is any such bits in there. Ideally, all candidates would behave in perfectly ethical manners, but few do. I doubt HRC or Trump do, and that's what should be reported on.
The standard should be "truth" and not "where it comes from." We reserve that standard for the justice system where unethical police officers could get away with illegal behaviour to make a case without those limits.
I have the same problem with the nvidia drivers - last time I tried using 4.7.0, the nvidia drivers crapped out during installation. I know there's a patch out there somewhere, I'd rather get it from Nvidia.
You don't think they could imagine more useful purposes to put that information?
Maybe they don't want Obama to know what they know. Maybe they want to wait for HRC to get into the White House (everyone knew she'd be running this year) to blackmail her. The Russians have absolutely zero interest in American justice being served, why would they release it at all?
And this was my point. If they had done this more surreptitiously, it likely wouldn't have been noticed as quickly. The fact it was planned out ahead and will happen automatically, barring a change in government to repeal it, gives businesses the business case to make these changes asap, with the lead-in time the law has given them. However, if they had simply increased the minimum wage by $.5-$1 per year for each of the next however many years it takes to get to $15/hr, businesses would not have the same business case for automation until it got to $12-$14/hr, and that would have spurred the automation technology to get over their last hurdles at that time, and then the roll-out, and, yes, minimum wage would have been $16-$18 before the automation would have been there.
Conversely, had the minimum wage been frozen instead for the next 10 years, automation would be even further out. I'm not saying this as an alternate solution, just pointing out that an inevitability such as automation is seriously moved up by announcing it as if with a bullhorn.
Much like getting warning that your employer is going to get rid of you by the end of the year - you don't wait for the pink slip before you start job searching in earnest, and a business knowing that its labour costs are going to increase by significant amounts over a relatively short period of time will start looking at alternatives at its earliest opportunity, once it knows where the costs will be and over what time frame.
Yup. This isn't really a valid argument against increasing the minimum wage.
At worst, it merely hastens the inevitable by a few years, but this is going to happen.
It's the (mythical) frog-in-boiling-water here. If you had bumped up the minimum wage slowly, the impetus wouldn't be there. Hell, they may not even notice until minimum wage got to $18/hr (ok, maybe before then). But when you increase the labour cost by 25-100%, all in one go, you shock the system so bad that they will naturally look to any and all means necessary to rein in their labour expenses. It becomes the squeaky wheel that's going to get a whole lot of grease. Avoid the labour costs from getting noticeably squeaky in short order, and it might have been more than a few years.
Further, this will result in a reverse shock when these robots are deployed - putting extra people out of jobs if they work, and possibly shutting down some less-profitable franchises if they don't work putting even more people out of work.
Would this happen naturally? Of course. But don't pretend the net social cost is zero to hasten it. It's still the equivalent of the broken-window fallacy.
I do not think being this fat is health or sexy but I a sure as hell there are people that do
False equivalence. You're treating two things, one subjective (what's sexy) and one objective (what's healthy) as if they were equivalent. They aren't.
This feminist group is doing likewise. Acceptance of unhealthy obesity is tantamount to abuse. It's statistical murder. Instead of encouraging people (let's face it here, they're focused on women, but the same applies to men as well) who are obese to, you know, do the work to get to an objectively healthy body weight and save their lives, they're encouraging these women to revel in their obesity and thereby shorten these women's lives. And that's pro-woman?
If you're into BBW, all the power to ya. But don't pretend like you're doing those women any long-term favours. You're participating in their deaths just as surely as if you stuffed the twinkie in their mouth yourself.
As to Facebook, they should really stay the fuck out of it. Allow groups who promote healthy body images to flourish. The proper response to negative speech like this group's is positive speech, not banning.
Having worked with teams in other continents regularly for the last 10 years, I feel a need to correct this.
Time zone differences = delayed = impossible to conduct international business.
I work with most of my coworkers two timezones east of me, but some in India basically 12 hours ahead. I can go back and forth with my same-continent coworkers a hundred times in a day (think: instant messaging, or, heck, just get on the phone with them). But to get a hundred back-and-forth with the team in India has just taken something that could be done in a day and stretched it out over five months (5 months x ~20 round trips per month). Also known as 5-20 iterations (depending on iteration length). That's close enough to qualify for the adjective "impossible."
I can't imagine what they could possibly do to derail Trump's campaign. Trump is not cowed by divulging his affairs - he's been a "reality" TV star, and his loud mouth has already exposed all manner of nastiness without derailing the campaign already. His websites are just that - websites. He likely doesn't rely on them either for getting out his message (the MSM is doing a fine job already) or for his business dealings, so shutting them down is useless.
His supporters don't support him because he's a high-and-mighty politician of impeccable ideology. They support him because that's precisely what he isn't. There's simply nothing that Anonymous can do to dissuade Trump's followers from following. And everyone else who might be swayed by anything they uncover is already swayed by the ranting that has already come out of Trump's mouth. I just don't see anywhere they can go from here.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't mean those are the guys commenting... :)
From a debugging perspective, it's probably much easier to unit test and fine-tune the algorithms based on the raw speech as then at least the human developer can listen to the audio and compare it to the produced output.
And, of course, in my experience, once such debug capabilities are turned on, there's no impetus later in the cycle to turn them off. I'm just as guilty in that regard as anyone else I know, sometimes probably worse as I end up turning on even more debug information later in the cycle than we had at the beginning.
Remind me again why I want to solve this problem. Yes, I know I could find my password. I don't care. But since that's on my home PC, and I'm standing in front of a TSA agent, at that point, it's too late.
Really? 5-digit UID and you don't get simple spatial awareness?
That would require me to be at home. Which is orthogonal to being in front of a US TSA agent. I can't do both at the same time. And I sure as hell am not going to do that to all my passwords before going on a trip to the US just to prep for this BOHICA.
Sure, but I have no idea what my slashdot password is. Sorry. When Firefox forgets my password, I'll lose my account.
Why do I get the impression these are both the same AC?
That may work for you. For me, though, unfortunately, both my manager and my star developer are Indian. I can't just hang up on an Indian accent. :) Then again, I can recognise their voices pretty easily by now, so any other Indian accent, sure. :)
I don't know if it's a general rule for everyone, but I got called racist for opposing Obama's socialist tendencies in 2008 before he even became president, and was still campaigning. I got it regularly, and I don't care about the colour of his skin (any more than I care about the orange-tinge of Trump's skin).
I saw it so often that I can't believe anyone couldn't see it. In fact, if anything, it's that sort of knee-jerk name-calling of anyone who didn't fully embrace the Obama/Clinton progressive line that most likely cost HRC the election. Sure, people on the coasts didn't mind because they were intelligent enough and progressive enough to vote for Obama purely on the colour of his skin, or Clinton on the gender she identifies as, and were sorry for all their unearned privilege. But the people in the flyover states, even ones that traditionally have been Democrat strongholds, have apparently tired of this "hyperbole and untrue" experience. Except it's neither hyperbole nor untrue.
Personally, I'd rather Trump wasn't president. I suspect many, if not most, people who voted for Trump also would rather he wasn't president. However, when his opponent drops into name calling ("deplorables" likely did as much as anything to sink Clinton's campaign), most didn't see much choice.
I'm just hoping he's a one-term president at this point. But if the Democrats continue to blame everyone but themselves for their loss, I'm not holding my breath.
Since some people don't want Sarah Palin in the White House ;)
In order to take it to court, I imagine one must have standing to sue. A single elector may have trouble proving standing, as their one vote, by itself, is unlikely to tilt the election. However, there's no disputing (I think) that Clinton would suffer irreparable harm, assuming the results are tampered. She has standing. The academics do not.
To disclaim bias, I say this happy that Clinton did not win. (But not happy that Trump won... sigh) As I've said before, I'd rather honesty and transparency than fraud, regardless of what that brings to light. If Clinton should have been the legal winner of those college votes, then she should have them, and should sue to get that done. Though I can understand a reluctance - undermining the fiction of votes counting also undermines the validity of future Democrat presidents, not just the current Republican president-elect, and her chances of winning are likely quite low. There's little upside to the challenge for her, and great downside for her party.
Damnit, I read the question backwards. I read it as "should reporters report on stuff that may have come from illegal sources" isntead of "should reporters ignore stuff that came from illegal sources." My bad.
As long as what they report on is true and unbiased, yes. I don't care if it's on the HRC campaign or the Trump campaign, as long as it is objectively true. I would rather the politicians were honest and transparent, and if it takes a foreign power to force it, I have a hard time complaining.
Leave the pontificating to the pundits. Journalists should merely report the truth.
And, no, I don't care for Hillary "embarrassing" herself. That may be truthful, but it's not any more germane to the discussion than Trump embarrassing himself (even though that gets reported on as well on a regular basis - we don't need Russian interference to see it). The juicy bits, such as it were, would be any case of unethical and/or illegal behaviour. I haven't really followed the leaks, so I don't know if there is any such bits in there. Ideally, all candidates would behave in perfectly ethical manners, but few do. I doubt HRC or Trump do, and that's what should be reported on.
The standard should be "truth" and not "where it comes from." We reserve that standard for the justice system where unethical police officers could get away with illegal behaviour to make a case without those limits.
So many important scientific discoveries start with the phrase "huh, that's weird."
The result is that people will use passwords like Welcome0! which can be figured out by many people simultaneously and therefore is a weak password.
/me changes all his passwords to Welcome1@
I have the same problem with the nvidia drivers - last time I tried using 4.7.0, the nvidia drivers crapped out during installation. I know there's a patch out there somewhere, I'd rather get it from Nvidia.
You don't think they could imagine more useful purposes to put that information?
Maybe they don't want Obama to know what they know. Maybe they want to wait for HRC to get into the White House (everyone knew she'd be running this year) to blackmail her. The Russians have absolutely zero interest in American justice being served, why would they release it at all?
... my how things have changed. Now IBM has more employees in India than any other country.
You only think you haven't been hacked.
I'll give you a hint. "Hell0Kitty" is not a good enough password.
And this was my point. If they had done this more surreptitiously, it likely wouldn't have been noticed as quickly. The fact it was planned out ahead and will happen automatically, barring a change in government to repeal it, gives businesses the business case to make these changes asap, with the lead-in time the law has given them. However, if they had simply increased the minimum wage by $.5-$1 per year for each of the next however many years it takes to get to $15/hr, businesses would not have the same business case for automation until it got to $12-$14/hr, and that would have spurred the automation technology to get over their last hurdles at that time, and then the roll-out, and, yes, minimum wage would have been $16-$18 before the automation would have been there.
Conversely, had the minimum wage been frozen instead for the next 10 years, automation would be even further out. I'm not saying this as an alternate solution, just pointing out that an inevitability such as automation is seriously moved up by announcing it as if with a bullhorn.
Much like getting warning that your employer is going to get rid of you by the end of the year - you don't wait for the pink slip before you start job searching in earnest, and a business knowing that its labour costs are going to increase by significant amounts over a relatively short period of time will start looking at alternatives at its earliest opportunity, once it knows where the costs will be and over what time frame.
Yup. This isn't really a valid argument against increasing the minimum wage.
At worst, it merely hastens the inevitable by a few years, but this is going to happen.
It's the (mythical) frog-in-boiling-water here. If you had bumped up the minimum wage slowly, the impetus wouldn't be there. Hell, they may not even notice until minimum wage got to $18/hr (ok, maybe before then). But when you increase the labour cost by 25-100%, all in one go, you shock the system so bad that they will naturally look to any and all means necessary to rein in their labour expenses. It becomes the squeaky wheel that's going to get a whole lot of grease. Avoid the labour costs from getting noticeably squeaky in short order, and it might have been more than a few years.
Further, this will result in a reverse shock when these robots are deployed - putting extra people out of jobs if they work, and possibly shutting down some less-profitable franchises if they don't work putting even more people out of work.
Would this happen naturally? Of course. But don't pretend the net social cost is zero to hasten it. It's still the equivalent of the broken-window fallacy.
False equivalence. You're treating two things, one subjective (what's sexy) and one objective (what's healthy) as if they were equivalent. They aren't.
This feminist group is doing likewise. Acceptance of unhealthy obesity is tantamount to abuse. It's statistical murder. Instead of encouraging people (let's face it here, they're focused on women, but the same applies to men as well) who are obese to, you know, do the work to get to an objectively healthy body weight and save their lives, they're encouraging these women to revel in their obesity and thereby shorten these women's lives. And that's pro-woman?
If you're into BBW, all the power to ya. But don't pretend like you're doing those women any long-term favours. You're participating in their deaths just as surely as if you stuffed the twinkie in their mouth yourself.
As to Facebook, they should really stay the fuck out of it. Allow groups who promote healthy body images to flourish. The proper response to negative speech like this group's is positive speech, not banning.
Wow.
A radical centrist.
Never thought I'd see one of those out in the wild.
Having worked with teams in other continents regularly for the last 10 years, I feel a need to correct this.
Time zone differences = delayed = impossible to conduct international business.
I work with most of my coworkers two timezones east of me, but some in India basically 12 hours ahead. I can go back and forth with my same-continent coworkers a hundred times in a day (think: instant messaging, or, heck, just get on the phone with them). But to get a hundred back-and-forth with the team in India has just taken something that could be done in a day and stretched it out over five months (5 months x ~20 round trips per month). Also known as 5-20 iterations (depending on iteration length). That's close enough to qualify for the adjective "impossible."
So you're comparing government strings attached to ... governments putting strings on your private property? And you don't see the hypocrisy?
I can't imagine what they could possibly do to derail Trump's campaign. Trump is not cowed by divulging his affairs - he's been a "reality" TV star, and his loud mouth has already exposed all manner of nastiness without derailing the campaign already. His websites are just that - websites. He likely doesn't rely on them either for getting out his message (the MSM is doing a fine job already) or for his business dealings, so shutting them down is useless.
His supporters don't support him because he's a high-and-mighty politician of impeccable ideology. They support him because that's precisely what he isn't. There's simply nothing that Anonymous can do to dissuade Trump's followers from following. And everyone else who might be swayed by anything they uncover is already swayed by the ranting that has already come out of Trump's mouth. I just don't see anywhere they can go from here.