when mueller finds there is no crime or collusion (as is obvious to anyone with a brain, who has looked in vain for actual verifiable evidence for any of that), at around middle of 2018, just in time for midterms, it would indeed be so much "winning". trump's opponents are overplaying their hand on this. they should focus on opposing him on his polices that hurt voters, on his breaking election promises, and in promoting policy alternatives that benefit voters(all of them, instead of playing identity politics). crying "russians!", "impeachment!" , "resistance!",etc, etc, while supporting illegal immigrants, open trade and borders, support for more wars in support of "allies", politically correct suppression of free speech, etc etc. will not help.
as markets mature and competitors' lower priced products with similar or better features gain currency, apple needs to find markets where there are still consumers who get fooled by hype to buy overpriced mediocre products. or abandon the hype and absurd overpricing, and just try to satisfy customers at lowest prices that are still profitable, as others do. but that would make fanbois cry.
"hate" is a subjective term. people can get offended by anything they choose. so unless there is a call for actual and specific illegal activity(say by calling for murder of a specific individual or group) such speech should not be censored based on such a vaguely defined term.
that is my opinion. of course private companies have a right to do what they want with their property, either to censor or not. others(myself included) have a right to criticize that too, either way.
you seem to be pretty irrational in your response.
GP was wrong to not read carefully and assume, (like lots of people) that all stem cells are embryonic stem cells (which btw are pretty useless scientifically) and this involved latter. sibling reply has already addressed that mistake before you, but you are wrong to say "please keep religious to yourself" and "please don't vote or put yourself in any position of responsibility as you don't seem qualified".
1/ he did not refer to religion.
2/ one can be anti abortion, and/or anti embryonic stem cell harvesting, without being religious.
3/ he should be free to, and as an active citizen should, express ethical concerns based on ethical rules stemming from religion or any beliefs he has. (btw all moral codes, that extend beyond 1 person at 1 point of time, are beliefs).
4/ everyone operate with limited knowledge and qualifications (that includes you, GP and me), none are not omniscient gods. so no one should be excluded on arbitrary criteria preferred by some. instead rational discussion and debate, backed with verifiable facts, should be criteria on which words and actions should be judged. did you do that?
with each automated unobtrusive advance we get ability to hand over more of our bodies to automata and others.
hopefully such handovers will remain our choice.
some of us, even in other things, prefer to be in control and knowledgeable as much as possible, even if that makes demands on our time and other resources. for instance, that is why some like open source software and unix philosophy. others prefer (allegedly) easy to use proprietary stuff which cover up the actual workings and prevent repairing among other things.
we are getting to a similar choice about our bodies.
currently wikipedia has a extreme bias toward western secular globalist "liberal" elitist interventionist pov, due to power of entrenched editors.
prime example is article on british empire; a regime that engaged in all types of atrocities (to greater degree than any other regime in history) to exploit resources of others. genocide, ethnic cleansing, slavery, preventable famines killing millions, torture, brutal suppressions of widespread resistance, etc., etc., well in to 1970s.
but modern secular globalist "liberal" elites are direct beneficiaries of that regime, and their interventionist ideology is a direct descendant of that regime.
so there is a marked contrast between wikipedia article on british empire and articles on similar brutish regimes like stalin's ussr and mao's china etc. well known atrocities are mentioned at a minimum, atrocities that are less well known, like famines, are ignored, while sun shining all day is mentioned. this is so even when well sourced separate articles on these atrocities exist in wikipedia itself.
article's history page(not to mention frequent locking of page) is evidence of editors concerted attempts censor links to even wikipedia articles with short summary text in british empire article. even the "talk" page is censored to prevent discussion.
in the first place, this is too general, and group too many conditions together (derived from too few clues) to be precise and informative .
second, what is the point? either we know the artist had these conditions or not already. if we don't, we can't do a correct diagnosis based on this limited method anyway. nor do this say anything valuable about the creation or creative process, since even if artist had some condition that can be diagnosed, that is just one factor at the time, his emotional and mental states and his relationships, probably had more to do with his creations. nor does a person's physical state remain constant even with a condition; whether he slept, was drugged up, what he ate, etc, are probably more relevant.
third, technologically, this is just another hyped up application of data analysis.
one can't thrive by merely pandering to the weak minded herd.
*cough* Apple
apple is not thriving at the moment, with iphone with dwindling market share in a mature market, making most of its profits, its only past momentum that keeps it afloat.
vine is not dead. it is twitter itself that "can't monetize,.. can't sell" itself. in your words it is twitter that is dead.
alleged social networking/communicating/media site twitter became a zombie, when it betrayed its primary purpose by censoring and banning adventurous and broad minded members of 'society and network', for holding and expressing, not politically correct, rude (even 'hateful'), and intellectually diverse(and thus sometimes emotionally hurtful), views, to create a safe spaces for sick, weak (only the weak will confuse words with criminal actions), and closed minds of the herd. twitter is free to do that, but must accept the consequence; one can't thrive by merely pandering to the weak minded herd. in fact one goes bankrupt and die. slowly.
"He is private and has intentionally stayed out of the spotlight like J.D. Salinger"
his is ok, but he is not salinger. fact that there is a new derivative movie based on characters he "created" (if that is the word, given comparative lateness of his characters to a genre, and which he did nothing to expand beyond its limitations).
wonder how many are anticipating the commoditization of so called smart phones, now that market is mature in most countries and hardly grows. there isn't going to be money in that market.
sexual orientation, which is both fluid and dynamic, rather than fixed and static, is a choice, not a genetic imperative. there is zero evidence for "gay gene". nor is there any evolutionary reason for one.
let people be free to choose their life style (as long as they do not harm others same right). and change it too if they wish.
laws and regulations give and unfair advantage to those who break them(like uber and airbnb) with impunity through loop holes, and to those who are well established(like the hotels here and regular taxi services) and can ensure the strict enforcement of them.
laws and regulations are unfair to those who are law abiding, in a environment where others do not follow them.
solution is to, have the least amount of laws and regulations practically possible, with least amount of complexity, and ensure these fewer simpler rules are followed.
why do people slap "AI" label on unnecessarily? publicity?
"The AI program then looked for patterns in this data, correlating the courts' final judgements with, for example, the type of evidence submitted...a number of patterns emerged...For example, cases concerning detention conditions... more likely...cases involving sentencing...more likely"
this is mere data analysis. or is that what so called "AI" amount to?
and this, "judgements of the court were more dependent on the facts of the case itself " duh?! how smart of so called "AI" to find that out?
that xkcd has very little to do with my point. twitter is free to ban people they subjectively deem trolls/racists/whatever, but twitter has to accept the consequences (such as ruin and lay offs) of limiting robust contentious intellectual diversity (which is preferred by anyone who achieves, or try to achieve, anything in real world) to protect sensibilities and privileges of sponging snowflakes offended by politically incorrect speech.
your confusion is justified. it seems to be more an organic sensor than "heart on a chip". would help if editors here read the stuff before posting and get rid of irrelevant buzz words. that is what an editor supposed to do!
problem with twitter is, its leadership does not seem to know what it does. if it is a facilitator for expressing and communicating( a micro blogging site, media site, or whatever, it calls itself), it should not be putting any limits on any of that unless specifically asked to do so by courts after due process. instead, irrationally, its leaders seem to think expressing and communicating will be helped by a creating a "safe space" where some people's feelings and sensibilities will be privileged over others.
depending on 'delicate' people who must be protected from words( who are by definition spongers on more robust people), for profits, inevitably leads to ruin. this was predicted by many and will happen.
this story is meaningless. conclusions drawn are too general and not necessarily correct. for just one example, there is a reason why mere averages are not good for statistical analysis. average rating for one set of data may be higher than another set of data for variety of reasons, including very high rating( or very low ratings) for just one or two shows skewing the average. skewing will be greater if the set is smaller. so if set of original content is small and has handful of shows with very high ratings, their average will be high, compared to a very large set of non original shows whose rating distribution is likely to be more even just because it is a larger set.
he is so careless about it because it's not his money.its either investors' or public money. he billions are just paper, it is investors who give value to it ( eg elizabeth holmes who became a billionaire and then went to zero just on paper) . he has a blank cheque to fulfill his dreams at others' cost.
if investor want to waste it and lose money, let them.
public money should not be so wasted, but on the other hand, corrupt politicians like clinton has wasted it in worse ways .
"self driving" should not require a human at wheel. tesla requires one. and as for "safety features" and tesla's "own standards", how about an alarm to warn driver that he has been away from wheel after a few seconds.
musk and tesla better learn that false advertising will get them in trouble as crashes pile up.
in its breakdown, "college grad or up" go for clinton >50%, while trump is in 30%s. trump wins other categories of education in that poll. but when it comes to income, trump wins "more than $75k"(smaller margin) and "$35-75k"(bigger margin) , while clinton wins "less than $35k"(bigger margin).
but all studies say income and education is highly correlated in usa.
so how to explain this anomaly(income and education giving different preferences) in poll( which is similar in other polls that offer breakdowns like that).
a partial explanation is race. as la times says "clinton holds a distinct edge among lower-income voters, reflecting her strong support among blacks and latinos. " in fact, its blacks who go for clinton 87 to 4.
Slashdot Mirror
when mueller finds there is no crime or collusion (as is obvious to anyone with a brain, who has looked in vain for actual verifiable evidence for any of that), at around middle of 2018, just in time for midterms, it would indeed be so much "winning".
trump's opponents are overplaying their hand on this. they should focus on opposing him on his polices that hurt voters, on his breaking election promises, and in promoting policy alternatives that benefit voters(all of them, instead of playing identity politics).
crying "russians!", "impeachment!" , "resistance!",etc, etc, while supporting illegal immigrants, open trade and borders, support for more wars in support of "allies", politically correct suppression of free speech, etc etc. will not help.
as markets mature and competitors' lower priced products with similar or better features gain currency, apple needs to find markets where there are still consumers who get fooled by hype to buy overpriced mediocre products.
or abandon the hype and absurd overpricing, and just try to satisfy customers at lowest prices that are still profitable, as others do. but that would make fanbois cry.
if /. still had the kind of editors that once made it great, it would not be posting such an article uncritically.
"hate" is a subjective term. people can get offended by anything they choose.
so unless there is a call for actual and specific illegal activity(say by calling for murder of a specific individual or group) such speech should not be censored based on such a vaguely defined term.
that is my opinion.
of course private companies have a right to do what they want with their property, either to censor or not. others(myself included) have a right to criticize that too, either way.
you seem to be pretty irrational in your response.
GP was wrong to not read carefully and assume, (like lots of people) that all stem cells are embryonic stem cells (which btw are pretty useless scientifically) and this involved latter. sibling reply has already addressed that mistake before you,
but you are wrong to say "please keep religious to yourself" and "please don't vote or put yourself in any position of responsibility as you don't seem qualified".
1/ he did not refer to religion.
2/ one can be anti abortion, and/or anti embryonic stem cell harvesting, without being religious.
3/ he should be free to, and as an active citizen should, express ethical concerns based on ethical rules stemming from religion or any beliefs he has. (btw all moral codes, that extend beyond 1 person at 1 point of time, are beliefs).
4/ everyone operate with limited knowledge and qualifications (that includes you, GP and me), none are not omniscient gods. so no one should be excluded on arbitrary criteria preferred by some. instead rational discussion and debate, backed with verifiable facts, should be criteria on which words and actions should be judged. did you do that?
I should go find old theories and republish them as new ideas, then I can brag I was published in scientific journals.
"The researchers conducted nearly 1,000 computer simulations and estimate about 20 impacts could do the job."
this is what modern science is reduced to, old theories joined to faddish techs that can be easily trailered to fit the theory.
with each automated unobtrusive advance we get ability to hand over more of our bodies to automata and others.
hopefully such handovers will remain our choice.
some of us, even in other things, prefer to be in control and knowledgeable as much as possible, even if that makes demands on our time and other resources. for instance, that is why some like open source software and unix philosophy. others prefer (allegedly) easy to use proprietary stuff which cover up the actual workings and prevent repairing among other things.
we are getting to a similar choice about our bodies.
currently wikipedia has a extreme bias toward western secular globalist "liberal" elitist interventionist pov, due to power of entrenched editors.
prime example is article on british empire; a regime that engaged in all types of atrocities (to greater degree than any other regime in history) to exploit resources of others. genocide, ethnic cleansing, slavery, preventable famines killing millions, torture, brutal suppressions of widespread resistance, etc., etc., well in to 1970s.
but modern secular globalist "liberal" elites are direct beneficiaries of that regime, and their interventionist ideology is a direct descendant of that regime.
so there is a marked contrast between wikipedia article on british empire and articles on similar brutish regimes like stalin's ussr and mao's china etc.
well known atrocities are mentioned at a minimum, atrocities that are less well known, like famines, are ignored, while sun shining all day is mentioned.
this is so even when well sourced separate articles on these atrocities exist in wikipedia itself.
article's history page(not to mention frequent locking of page) is evidence of editors concerted attempts censor links to even wikipedia articles with short summary text in british empire article. even the "talk" page is censored to prevent discussion.
in the first place, this is too general, and group too many conditions together (derived from too few clues) to be precise and informative .
second, what is the point?
either we know the artist had these conditions or not already. if we don't, we can't do a correct diagnosis based on this limited method anyway.
nor do this say anything valuable about the creation or creative process, since even if artist had some condition that can be diagnosed, that is just one factor at the time, his emotional and mental states and his relationships, probably had more to do with his creations. nor does a person's physical state remain constant even with a condition; whether he slept, was drugged up, what he ate, etc, are probably more relevant.
third, technologically, this is just another hyped up application of data analysis.
not!
one can't thrive by merely pandering to the weak minded herd.
*cough* Apple
apple is not thriving at the moment, with iphone with dwindling market share in a mature market, making most of its profits, its only past momentum that keeps it afloat.
vine is not dead. it is twitter itself that "can't monetize,.. can't sell" itself. in your words it is twitter that is dead.
alleged social networking/communicating/media site twitter became a zombie, when it betrayed its primary purpose by censoring and banning adventurous and broad minded members of 'society and network', for holding and expressing, not politically correct, rude (even 'hateful'), and intellectually diverse(and thus sometimes emotionally hurtful), views, to create a safe spaces for sick, weak (only the weak will confuse words with criminal actions), and closed minds of the herd.
twitter is free to do that, but must accept the consequence; one can't thrive by merely pandering to the weak minded herd. in fact one goes bankrupt and die. slowly.
vine merely got infected by that zoomie twitter
"He is private and has intentionally stayed out of the spotlight like J.D. Salinger"
his is ok, but he is not salinger. fact that there is a new derivative movie based on characters he "created" (if that is the word, given comparative lateness of his characters to a genre, and which he did nothing to expand beyond its limitations).
wonder how many are anticipating the commoditization of so called smart phones, now that market is mature in most countries and hardly grows.
there isn't going to be money in that market.
sexual orientation, which is both fluid and dynamic, rather than fixed and static, is a choice, not a genetic imperative.
there is zero evidence for "gay gene". nor is there any evolutionary reason for one.
let people be free to choose their life style (as long as they do not harm others same right). and change it too if they wish.
Even better, you set the default to "no".
you would. most average users would not change the default. market leadership of M$ applications and windows is proof. most isheep wont either.
so the real question is whether such people needs to be protected? imo no.
laws and regulations give and unfair advantage to those who break them(like uber and airbnb) with impunity through loop holes, and to those who are well established(like the hotels here and regular taxi services) and can ensure the strict enforcement of them.
laws and regulations are unfair to those who are law abiding, in a environment where others do not follow them.
solution is to, have the least amount of laws and regulations practically possible, with least amount of complexity, and ensure these fewer simpler rules are followed.
why do people slap "AI" label on unnecessarily? publicity?
"The AI program then looked for patterns in this data, correlating the courts' final judgements with, for example, the type of evidence submitted ...a number of patterns emerged ...For example, cases concerning detention conditions ... more likely ...cases involving sentencing ...more likely"
this is mere data analysis. or is that what so called "AI" amount to?
and this,
"judgements of the court were more dependent on the facts of the case itself "
duh?!
how smart of so called "AI" to find that out?
that xkcd has very little to do with my point.
twitter is free to ban people they subjectively deem trolls/racists/whatever, but twitter has to accept the consequences (such as ruin and lay offs) of limiting robust contentious intellectual diversity (which is preferred by anyone who achieves, or try to achieve, anything in real world) to protect sensibilities and privileges of sponging snowflakes offended by politically incorrect speech.
that measures the beating of a heart....??
Huh..???
your confusion is justified.
it seems to be more an organic sensor than "heart on a chip".
would help if editors here read the stuff before posting and get rid of irrelevant buzz words. that is what an editor supposed to do!
What in the world do those 3700 people do?
engage is sjw activism under orders?
problem with twitter is, its leadership does not seem to know what it does.
if it is a facilitator for expressing and communicating( a micro blogging site, media site, or whatever, it calls itself), it should not be putting any limits on any of that unless specifically asked to do so by courts after due process. instead, irrationally, its leaders seem to think expressing and communicating will be helped by a creating a "safe space" where some people's feelings and sensibilities will be privileged over others.
depending on 'delicate' people who must be protected from words( who are by definition spongers on more robust people), for profits, inevitably leads to ruin. this was predicted by many and will happen.
this story is meaningless. conclusions drawn are too general and not necessarily correct.
for just one example, there is a reason why mere averages are not good for statistical analysis. average rating for one set of data may be higher than another set of data for variety of reasons, including very high rating( or very low ratings) for just one or two shows skewing the average. skewing will be greater if the set is smaller. so if set of original content is small and has handful of shows with very high ratings, their average will be high, compared to a very large set of non original shows whose rating distribution is likely to be more even just because it is a larger set.
he is so careless about it because it's not his money.its either investors' or public money. he billions are just paper, it is investors who give value to it ( eg elizabeth holmes who became a billionaire and then went to zero just on paper) .
he has a blank cheque to fulfill his dreams at others' cost.
if investor want to waste it and lose money, let them.
public money should not be so wasted, but on the other hand, corrupt politicians like clinton has wasted it in worse ways .
"self driving" should not require a human at wheel. tesla requires one.
and as for "safety features" and tesla's "own standards", how about an alarm to warn driver that he has been away from wheel after a few seconds.
musk and tesla better learn that false advertising will get them in trouble as crashes pile up.
there seems to be confusion on who are "educated" when it comes polls.
just 1 example,
la times tracking poll
http://graphics.latimes.com/us...
in its breakdown, "college grad or up" go for clinton >50%, while trump is in 30%s. trump wins other categories of education in that poll.
but when it comes to income, trump wins "more than $75k"(smaller margin) and "$35-75k"(bigger margin) , while clinton wins "less than $35k"(bigger margin).
but all studies say income and education is highly correlated in usa.
so how to explain this anomaly(income and education giving different preferences) in poll( which is similar in other polls that offer breakdowns like that).
a partial explanation is race. as la times says "clinton holds a distinct edge among lower-income voters, reflecting her strong support among blacks and latinos. " in fact, its blacks who go for clinton 87 to 4.
but that explains only lower income category.