Also, the usual argument that with metal-based currencies inflation is not possible is also false. There are several examples from history, which a primary one being when Mansa Musa passed through Egypt while making a pilgrimage to Mecca, he brought so much gold with him and gave it out so freely that it destabilized the economy. Spain also had similar inflation problems when they began mining silver in the new world. The supply far outstripped the ability to generate equivalent economic ability at the going rate which lead to inflation.
Gold (and silver) being used as currency has more to do with historical reasons than them being the best solution. It's sufficiently rare that you can't just create a bunch of it on your own, it's easy to work with so minting coins isn't prohibitively difficult, it doesn't corrode or react with most other common elements so it keeps up well, and it's not easy to counterfeit either, at least not since Archimedes. It also helps that they're shiny and you can make jewelry out of them so they are a good status symbol of wealth in and of themselves. Alternatively they'd suck to use for any real weapons so there was not alternative use in the past either outside of dishware and trinkets.
Fiat currency is perfectly fine. The problems are when the people who control the printing press get out of control. Money is just a commodity by which we easily facilitate trade so that we don't need to barter in all goods. Make more of any commodity and its value decreases according to supply and demand. If the UK wanted to fix the problem they could destroy some of the Pounds taken in as tax dollars. I'm generally surprised that governments don't do this more often, but I imagine it's because they couldn't explain to most people why they decided to "burn" $5 billion dollars instead of giving it to the poor or something like that.
I meant external from the perspective of the job itself, basically there isn't some characteristic of the job (e.g. requires lifting 100 lbs. or more on a regular basis) that favors men over women, though I can see where the confusion comes from due to poor wording on my part.
Here's one popular argument that I've heard before that offers an explanation for why IT and programming are predominantly male-driven: The incidence rate for autism spectrum disorders is about 4-5 times higher (there are plenty of interesting theories as to why for this in itself) in males than in females. People who fall into these categories often have more difficulty working with people and are likely to find programming or IT more appealing as they find working with a machine less difficult, because it doesn't require them to use the emotional reasoning capabilities that they lack or find more difficult to use.
If that were true, it's not that there's anything inherent to programming or IT jobs that make women bad or somehow less suitable in any general sense, but rather men being drawn to the field disproportionately.
So if there were outside factors that biologically predisposed men and women towards different career paths or interests would you accept that those might result in something other than an even distribution of employment in certain vocations?
I already have a feeling that the answer is no, because you've already reached your conclusion and are just filling in everything else after the fact.
It included quotes from NFL quarterbacks -- for example, ". . . having Microsoft Surface technology on sidelines allows players and coaches to analyze what our opponents are trying to do in almost real time."
Yeah, the opponents were probably getting frustrated at theirs failing as well.
Jokes aside, I have a Surface Book which I haven't had any problems with so far, though I tend to use it more in notebook mode than as a tablet. I'm wondering if this has more to do with them using a poorly coded application that crashes or hangs all the time. iPads would probably make more sense though as there's probably less that can go wrong given how the OS tends to limit what apps can do and heavily restricts background processes.
It's even more useless than that. The overall difference is about 4% absolute (8.3 vs 7.86 on a 10-point scale) between the two groups in the actual study, or you could say that one group is 5.5% more satisfied than the other based on the numbers. I have no idea how a.4 difference in satisfaction translates to anything in the real world. Is it the difference between winning an Olympic medal or being set on fire, or is it the difference between only getting chocolate ice cream instead of strawberry ice cream?
The only thing I can tell is that you apparently need to spend about $200 ($361 on average vs. $137 on average) more to get.4 satisfaction.
It hardly matters if we get to the point where we're editing our own genes and creating designer babies. No reason we can't have a nice blue-eyed, red-headed child with Asian facial features and a deep mahogany skin color with the fast twitch muscles and a mental disposition towards a strong work ethnic in order to make them a sports sensation.
I think a lot of people assume it's a Samsung ecosystem they're switching out of, not Android.
That wouldn't surprise me. My mother doesn't really know or care to understand what Android is, but when she needs a new phone she's pretty insistent on getting another Motorola phone, so it's just a matter of finding one that they make that suits her needs. I recall seeing this a lot back in the early days of PC's where people would insist they needed another Compaq or $brand without really understanding that it didn't matter as the operating system was still the same and they could transfer their files and programs over. Even after explaining this to some people they're just overly hesitant to make a switch, even if they could be getting something more suited to their needs.
I also think a lot of people, myself included, assume analysts are full of hot air.
That goes without saying. Anyone who really understood how the market would behave wouldn't be blabbing about it for free on the internet. Instead they'd be keeping their mouth shut and buying and selling stocks and getting progressively more wealthy.
Socialized medicine doesn't somehow equate to free and unlimited health care. We could spend 100% of GDP on health care and people would still eventually get to a point where there's nothing that can be done. I won't outright object to a single-payer tax supported medical system, but it's pretty obvious that we'd need to put some rules into place as it's not financially viable to provide the unlimited care that people are capable of consuming.
The most obvious are that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize the consequences if your unhealthy lifestyle. If you smoke and get lung cancer, tough shit. Drink and ruin your liver, same deal. Obesity related medical issues are your own responsibility as well. Also, mandatory requirement that if you want to use the system, you're automatically an organ donor. Throw in some tax deductions (or alternatively just higher taxes for anyone who wouldn't get the "deduction") for people who generally try to stay in reasonable health and it's a reasonable system.
I think you're misunderstanding this. You already get a full refund no matter what you do, but if you get a different Samsung device, Samsung will give you $100 (well actually $75 since they were already offering $25 previously) credit. It's a smart move because as much as $100 costs for the ~2 million Note 7 customers out there, they stand to lose a lot more if people start avoiding their brand due to this. Doing right by your customers is an important part of retaining them.
That may not be the case though. There's been a lot of speculation that it wasn't a battery issue (at least not entirely) but also something related to the overall device design, which is further supported since they've stopped production entirely. Given that there were multiple replacement units that had problems within a week of them going out to customers, it's difficult to accept the idea that it was just a battery issue unless Samsung completed screwed the pooch on exchanging devices.
Removable batteries don't matter if the device itself is somehow leading to the problem for whatever (I've heard some ideas that its the CPU getting too hot, the case expanding/contracting and deforming the battery) reason. Perhaps Samsung could eventually engineer a battery that wouldn't be susceptible to whatever the underlying cause was, but how many months would that take to engineer and properly test and then how many more to produce enough to provide them to every customer. Most customers probably couldn't go without their device for that long, they probably couldn't travel with it even if they were still using it, and without really knowing the whole story or the scope of the problem, six months might by asking a non-trivial amount of people to play Russian roulette with their phone, which is a massive liability issue.
Yes, consumers really like having removable batteries, but if the device itself ensures a greatly reduced lifespan that results in a violent destruction of the battery, does it really matter if it's removable?
It's pretty unlikely that the amount of melanin a person possess has anything to do with their ability to repay loans. Rather it is the current economic situation, family status, job, etc. that determine the ability to repay a loan. It's just that those factors also have a strong correlation with ethnicity so people make a lazy and incorrect assumption.
It's similar to crime statistics. If you look at the raw figures you see something like a 300% disparity based on ethnicity for certain crimes, but once you control for socioeconomic status, family structure during upbringing, and a host of other factors it turns out that almost all of that difference is explained away. It's the same as the supposed gender wage gap. Account for overtime, vocation, experience, etc. and the gap disappears almost entirely.
We as humans often don't look at all of the small underlying conditions that contribute to those outcomes and instead see a big picture result and then go off on some kind of idiotic screed that simply isn't true.
Any good AI or anyone with a good business sense is going to look at those particular cases and figure out what additional data allows them to discriminate further. If you can learn that while men under 30 typically have higher accidents, but those who, for example, had a 3.75 GPA or higher in college have accident rates that are on par or lower than the average you can offer those individuals a lower rate than competitors which means you're more likely to get their business. The same goes for any other category where there's some discrimination. Figure out how to discriminate even further and you'll have a competitive advantage.
Why the f*ck would you allow actual 3rd party code to run inside your own software, to display an advert?
Most savvy users wouldn't which is why they use some kind of ad blocker or no script plugin. Even if asa weren't vectors for malware infection, video ads and trackers tend to chew through bandwidth and batteries as well.
If websites limited themselves to static images without the massive number of trackers, I'd be far more likely to turn off the blocker. But for whatever reason, advertisers pay websites more if they use the world's most annoying shit.
I'm beginning to wonder if it's an issue with something other than just the battery. Otherwise Samsung would be incredibly idiotic to send out replacement parts that suffer from the same problem. The alternatives are that a massive mistake led to sending out defective units as replacements without fixing them first, or that Samsung's battery supplier (I think I read that the source all or most of them from third parties) wasn't fully aware of the extend of their problems and have shipped more bad batteries.
This just makes me more and more sure that Assange couldn't have raped those women, because he probably sat at the edge of the bed all night telling them how amazing the sex would be without ever delivering.
To be fair, it's probably better to import foreign workers to the U.S. who will pay taxes than it is to lose that money to overseas competition. If we could set up some kind of swap system where we get Vijay or Min that can do something of value for society we trade Bubba and Charlene who are just going to soak up government assistance it would be fine. Most of the people in America are children of previous foreigners, or if you really want to go back far enough everyone on the continent originally came from the old world at some point. Who gives a shit if they work hard, pay their taxes, and don't fuck things up for everyone else?
Slashdot Mirror
Also, the usual argument that with metal-based currencies inflation is not possible is also false. There are several examples from history, which a primary one being when Mansa Musa passed through Egypt while making a pilgrimage to Mecca, he brought so much gold with him and gave it out so freely that it destabilized the economy. Spain also had similar inflation problems when they began mining silver in the new world. The supply far outstripped the ability to generate equivalent economic ability at the going rate which lead to inflation.
Gold (and silver) being used as currency has more to do with historical reasons than them being the best solution. It's sufficiently rare that you can't just create a bunch of it on your own, it's easy to work with so minting coins isn't prohibitively difficult, it doesn't corrode or react with most other common elements so it keeps up well, and it's not easy to counterfeit either, at least not since Archimedes. It also helps that they're shiny and you can make jewelry out of them so they are a good status symbol of wealth in and of themselves. Alternatively they'd suck to use for any real weapons so there was not alternative use in the past either outside of dishware and trinkets.
Fiat currency is perfectly fine. The problems are when the people who control the printing press get out of control. Money is just a commodity by which we easily facilitate trade so that we don't need to barter in all goods. Make more of any commodity and its value decreases according to supply and demand. If the UK wanted to fix the problem they could destroy some of the Pounds taken in as tax dollars. I'm generally surprised that governments don't do this more often, but I imagine it's because they couldn't explain to most people why they decided to "burn" $5 billion dollars instead of giving it to the poor or something like that.
It's a shame that clean and cheap nuclear fusion is always 20 years away. At least the AI singularity is always 50 years away though.
I meant external from the perspective of the job itself, basically there isn't some characteristic of the job (e.g. requires lifting 100 lbs. or more on a regular basis) that favors men over women, though I can see where the confusion comes from due to poor wording on my part.
Here's one popular argument that I've heard before that offers an explanation for why IT and programming are predominantly male-driven: The incidence rate for autism spectrum disorders is about 4-5 times higher (there are plenty of interesting theories as to why for this in itself) in males than in females. People who fall into these categories often have more difficulty working with people and are likely to find programming or IT more appealing as they find working with a machine less difficult, because it doesn't require them to use the emotional reasoning capabilities that they lack or find more difficult to use.
If that were true, it's not that there's anything inherent to programming or IT jobs that make women bad or somehow less suitable in any general sense, but rather men being drawn to the field disproportionately.
Well half of them can eat the other half. That strategy can be repeated for a while, at the very least.
So if there were outside factors that biologically predisposed men and women towards different career paths or interests would you accept that those might result in something other than an even distribution of employment in certain vocations?
I already have a feeling that the answer is no, because you've already reached your conclusion and are just filling in everything else after the fact.
But will it be a male AI or a female AI? That's what's clearly important.
It included quotes from NFL quarterbacks -- for example, ". . . having Microsoft Surface technology on sidelines allows players and coaches to analyze what our opponents are trying to do in almost real time."
Yeah, the opponents were probably getting frustrated at theirs failing as well.
Jokes aside, I have a Surface Book which I haven't had any problems with so far, though I tend to use it more in notebook mode than as a tablet. I'm wondering if this has more to do with them using a poorly coded application that crashes or hangs all the time. iPads would probably make more sense though as there's probably less that can go wrong given how the OS tends to limit what apps can do and heavily restricts background processes.
It's even more useless than that. The overall difference is about 4% absolute (8.3 vs 7.86 on a 10-point scale) between the two groups in the actual study, or you could say that one group is 5.5% more satisfied than the other based on the numbers. I have no idea how a .4 difference in satisfaction translates to anything in the real world. Is it the difference between winning an Olympic medal or being set on fire, or is it the difference between only getting chocolate ice cream instead of strawberry ice cream?
.4 satisfaction.
The only thing I can tell is that you apparently need to spend about $200 ($361 on average vs. $137 on average) more to get
No, because it would be three times colder in hell if they did.
But much like a typo on a cover letter, genetic traits (or lack thereof) would provide HR with an easy way to cull the pool of candidates.
It hardly matters if we get to the point where we're editing our own genes and creating designer babies. No reason we can't have a nice blue-eyed, red-headed child with Asian facial features and a deep mahogany skin color with the fast twitch muscles and a mental disposition towards a strong work ethnic in order to make them a sports sensation.
I think a lot of people assume it's a Samsung ecosystem they're switching out of, not Android.
That wouldn't surprise me. My mother doesn't really know or care to understand what Android is, but when she needs a new phone she's pretty insistent on getting another Motorola phone, so it's just a matter of finding one that they make that suits her needs. I recall seeing this a lot back in the early days of PC's where people would insist they needed another Compaq or $brand without really understanding that it didn't matter as the operating system was still the same and they could transfer their files and programs over. Even after explaining this to some people they're just overly hesitant to make a switch, even if they could be getting something more suited to their needs.
I also think a lot of people, myself included, assume analysts are full of hot air.
That goes without saying. Anyone who really understood how the market would behave wouldn't be blabbing about it for free on the internet. Instead they'd be keeping their mouth shut and buying and selling stocks and getting progressively more wealthy.
Of course. Those crafty bastards must have finally managed to distill the essence of Steve Jobs to produce an augmented reality distortion field.
Being Asian doesn't add anything. They're the most heavily discriminated against when applying for medical schools for instance.
Socialized medicine doesn't somehow equate to free and unlimited health care. We could spend 100% of GDP on health care and people would still eventually get to a point where there's nothing that can be done. I won't outright object to a single-payer tax supported medical system, but it's pretty obvious that we'd need to put some rules into place as it's not financially viable to provide the unlimited care that people are capable of consuming.
The most obvious are that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize the consequences if your unhealthy lifestyle. If you smoke and get lung cancer, tough shit. Drink and ruin your liver, same deal. Obesity related medical issues are your own responsibility as well. Also, mandatory requirement that if you want to use the system, you're automatically an organ donor. Throw in some tax deductions (or alternatively just higher taxes for anyone who wouldn't get the "deduction") for people who generally try to stay in reasonable health and it's a reasonable system.
I think you're misunderstanding this. You already get a full refund no matter what you do, but if you get a different Samsung device, Samsung will give you $100 (well actually $75 since they were already offering $25 previously) credit. It's a smart move because as much as $100 costs for the ~2 million Note 7 customers out there, they stand to lose a lot more if people start avoiding their brand due to this. Doing right by your customers is an important part of retaining them.
That may not be the case though. There's been a lot of speculation that it wasn't a battery issue (at least not entirely) but also something related to the overall device design, which is further supported since they've stopped production entirely. Given that there were multiple replacement units that had problems within a week of them going out to customers, it's difficult to accept the idea that it was just a battery issue unless Samsung completed screwed the pooch on exchanging devices.
Removable batteries don't matter if the device itself is somehow leading to the problem for whatever (I've heard some ideas that its the CPU getting too hot, the case expanding/contracting and deforming the battery) reason. Perhaps Samsung could eventually engineer a battery that wouldn't be susceptible to whatever the underlying cause was, but how many months would that take to engineer and properly test and then how many more to produce enough to provide them to every customer. Most customers probably couldn't go without their device for that long, they probably couldn't travel with it even if they were still using it, and without really knowing the whole story or the scope of the problem, six months might by asking a non-trivial amount of people to play Russian roulette with their phone, which is a massive liability issue.
Yes, consumers really like having removable batteries, but if the device itself ensures a greatly reduced lifespan that results in a violent destruction of the battery, does it really matter if it's removable?
Who in their right mind would think this would stop terrorists?
I'm kind of worried it will have the opposite effect because, if anything, the sloppy controls make me want to send a bomb to person responsible.
It's pretty unlikely that the amount of melanin a person possess has anything to do with their ability to repay loans. Rather it is the current economic situation, family status, job, etc. that determine the ability to repay a loan. It's just that those factors also have a strong correlation with ethnicity so people make a lazy and incorrect assumption.
It's similar to crime statistics. If you look at the raw figures you see something like a 300% disparity based on ethnicity for certain crimes, but once you control for socioeconomic status, family structure during upbringing, and a host of other factors it turns out that almost all of that difference is explained away. It's the same as the supposed gender wage gap. Account for overtime, vocation, experience, etc. and the gap disappears almost entirely.
We as humans often don't look at all of the small underlying conditions that contribute to those outcomes and instead see a big picture result and then go off on some kind of idiotic screed that simply isn't true.
Any good AI or anyone with a good business sense is going to look at those particular cases and figure out what additional data allows them to discriminate further. If you can learn that while men under 30 typically have higher accidents, but those who, for example, had a 3.75 GPA or higher in college have accident rates that are on par or lower than the average you can offer those individuals a lower rate than competitors which means you're more likely to get their business. The same goes for any other category where there's some discrimination. Figure out how to discriminate even further and you'll have a competitive advantage.
Why the f*ck would you allow actual 3rd party code to run inside your own software, to display an advert?
Most savvy users wouldn't which is why they use some kind of ad blocker or no script plugin. Even if asa weren't vectors for malware infection, video ads and trackers tend to chew through bandwidth and batteries as well.
If websites limited themselves to static images without the massive number of trackers, I'd be far more likely to turn off the blocker. But for whatever reason, advertisers pay websites more if they use the world's most annoying shit.
I'm beginning to wonder if it's an issue with something other than just the battery. Otherwise Samsung would be incredibly idiotic to send out replacement parts that suffer from the same problem. The alternatives are that a massive mistake led to sending out defective units as replacements without fixing them first, or that Samsung's battery supplier (I think I read that the source all or most of them from third parties) wasn't fully aware of the extend of their problems and have shipped more bad batteries.
It's Hillary that's running, not Bill.
This just makes me more and more sure that Assange couldn't have raped those women, because he probably sat at the edge of the bed all night telling them how amazing the sex would be without ever delivering.
To be fair, it's probably better to import foreign workers to the U.S. who will pay taxes than it is to lose that money to overseas competition. If we could set up some kind of swap system where we get Vijay or Min that can do something of value for society we trade Bubba and Charlene who are just going to soak up government assistance it would be fine. Most of the people in America are children of previous foreigners, or if you really want to go back far enough everyone on the continent originally came from the old world at some point. Who gives a shit if they work hard, pay their taxes, and don't fuck things up for everyone else?