"Always government at fault in Russia, even for things it's not remotely involved in."
Given that the Russian government involves itself in everything from who you have sex with to running of companies, to how sovereign states should vote to annexation of their territory the number of things it's not involved in is pretty much nil anyway.
"Putin is a lot better than he could be"
Yes, he could do worse, he could actually fire the nukes. Unfortunately doing everything but that doesn't exactly act as a valid argument for not viewing him as an absolute wanker with a severe case of little big man syndrome that the world would be better off without.
No you've got it completely backwards, tax law is extremely simple, and that's it's flaw.
When income tax for corporations simply says something along the lines of "You must pay 21% tax on all profits" there's nothing complex in law. What's complex are the tax avoidance and evasion schemes that go out their way to redefine profit as something else.
It's the evasion and avoidance schemes and all the lawyering that goes around justifying profit as not actually being profit that is complex not the tax law itself. When someone says "tax law is complex" what they mean is that "finding ways to legally justify not paying tax is complicated".
Exactly right. Most people in the UK voted for whoever they voted for in acceptance that government would tax corporations in the 20% - 25% range. Thus the government has every right to take this money from corporations in tax. The GP was off his rocker to suggest governments have no right, yes they do, that's the whole fucking point of a democracy - to create legitimate representatives of the people.
"If anything, increased punishment led to more people not only sexually assaulting but outright killing their victim since it reduces the chance of being caught without increasing the punishment significantly anymore."
Do you have any evidence of that? It sounds like pure speculation especially as murder rates have been declining.
"For a proof of the second, see copyright infringement, the ridiculous fines that are today attached to it and anything but a decline in it. With a near zero chance to get caught, nobody cares about punishment as deterrence."
Similarly see some speed cameras. The fact is incidences of speeding and subsequent reductions in accidents have been seen in some areas where speed cameras have been implemented.
Turns out that it's not as simple as you think - penalties in some cases do in fact act as deterrence. It's often a question of risk vs. reward- people don't speed where a fixed speed cameras is situated because they know they'll get caught, there's no maybe, maybe not. In contrast people continue to pirate because there are many countermeasures to continue to avoid getting caught and because even if caught the only evidence that can be gathered is normally too weak for any kind of guilty verdict if actually challenged in court.
As for drink driving? Well many people have lost their job as a result of it if their job required them to have a clean driving license. A good number of these people have turned themselves around and opted to never drink drive again once they regained their license. Others? Sure, there are always those you can never help who will continue to be a danger to themselves and others until they finally lose their life being stupid but it doesn't mean that penalties don't ever work.
This particular scheme is aimed at the handful of respectable people who might just edge over the limit and think it's worth the risk- knowing they may be publicly named and shamed has a good chance of edging those people back away from drink driving. I'm sure the police know full well there's still going to be the terminally drunk types who will never change but I doubt they're expecting a 100% success rate in eliminating drink driving.
Which is why they're only going to do this if people fail breathalyser and subsequent blood alcohol tests.
That way even if you don't get convicted on some technicality there's nothing slanderous about saying you were being arrested for being over the limit.
"A few years ago they busted an online child pornography ring and then went around and named people whose credit cards were used without stopping to think that some of those cards were stolen and used fraudulently."
There wasn't any naming and shaming by the police in that case, the problem was just the latter point you mention, which is serious enough in itself, but not an example of naming and shaming gone wrong by the police. Instead it was more an example of police illiteracy towards computer crimes and fraud which is a growing problem nowadays given the trend towards those sorts of crimes.
The only issues with naming and shaming seemed to stem from tip offs to the press by colleagues and such of people who were arrested, but that's really why the UK is still despite the Leveson outcome in desperate need of better press regulation. Quite how we deal with the problem of nosy neighbours with loose lips spreading gossip in the first place upon sight of police officers in their neighbourhood is a different question altogether.
The police are scum because they're trying to cut down the amount of people who die annually to drink driving, many of whom aren't the drunk driver themselves but simply victims of them?
Your speeding argument is equally stupid. The fact is, you know full fucking well if you've been speeding or not. If you haven't and they still accuse you then plead not guilty and contest it, then you get to see the evidence and there wont be any because you know you weren't speeding. If you have then stop moaning and looking for excuses, go lobby your MP to get the speed limit changed if that's what you want.
If you don't know what speed you were doing you were driving without due care and attention anyway which is a charge in itself. Thanks to the leeway given to speeders you can't simply be done for "accidentally" going a few mph over the limit, you have to go markedly over the limit and even then most police forces offer a speeding awareness course upto about 10 - 15mph over the limit (depending on the speed) for first time offenders which means no points on your license and no conviction. To actually end up with points and a speeding conviction you've really got to be trying hard or not paying any attention whatsoever nowadays.
Bad drivers cost lives, often other people's lives who don't deserve it. If you don't want to be named and shamed under this scheme there's an extremely simple solution- don't fail a breathalyser test and then there's no public arrest record they can use to name and shame you in the first place. It's not difficult. If you do fail that test? well you know the law, you knew it was a possible outcome of the risk you took, serves you right for creating a situation where you could kill someone. Don't bitch at the police for actually trying to cut down on the amount of people who don't make it home for Christmas because of some selfish drunken asshole this year.
Road safety is one thing the police, government and car manufacturers combined have done a real good job on over the last decade in the UK, our roads are safer than ever and if they can continue to improve that to make sure perfectly innocent people don't die at the hands of a few selfish ignorant assholes? Good.
Your fuck the police attitude on this is childish and pathetic.
ACPO = Association of Chief Police Officers = the people who set the rules for their particular force that the people doing day to day policing follow. Yes they could change it at any time, but they haven't. The only time discretion is really allowed is if you're being an idiot like driving 35 in a built up zone when it's icy as fuck and it's not even really safe to do 20. They can't arbitrarily ignore their bosses rules and randomly charge different people differently dependent on nothing more than their mood or whatever.
Typically though it's the chief of police in conjunction with the police crime commissioner who decides whether this guideline is followed though, individual officers don't have the discretion to just ignore their boss and the elected representatives (previously a grouping of councillors, now the PCCs).
I'm well aware that there's no legal standing that says they absolutely can't pull you inside that buffer zone (see my post to someone else before you posted for an expansion on that point) but that officers that actually do pull people over can't without having questions to answer to their boss.
So yes, you're absolutely right it's a guideline, but it's a guideline enforced by those responsible for policing priorities on the officers that have to actually do the enforcing of it. Do any forces actually not follow this guideline? I'm pretty sure it's standard practice in the UK to follow it, precisely because the ACPO is largely made up by the very people who choose whether to follow the guidelines in the first place.
"It's a little more insidious in the US, because there is an informal speed buffer of something like "10% + 2mph over the limit," but it is not codified into law anywhere"
To be fair it's the same here in the UK in that respect, it's not codified in law that they can't pull you and try and ticket you inside the buffer, but it's recommended against by the policing federation itself, and the chances are if you refused the ticket and opted for court they'd never waste their time trying to prosecute as they'd then have to prove that there was indeed no issue with their equipment and so forth.
The chances are, the CPS, the UK's prosecution authority would just drop the case as not in the public interest, it just wouldn't be worth spending thousands of pounds in their time pursuing such a case of marginal speeding. It's likely even the judge would look poorly on them, any judge would be questioning why they even want to pursue it given that it would be going against their own policing guidelines; "Our officer was being a dick that day and just really wanted to ticket that guy so opted to ignore the policing guidelines" wouldn't really fly.
Which isn't to say that officers in the UK haven't in the past and are guaranteed not to try it on, if they pull you and you start being a dick to them and so forth they may push the ticket anyway just to make a put and hope you don't opt to go to court, but for the most part if you're actually a sensible, reasonable human being then the cops aren't going to ignore their own guidelines just to be arseholes to you thankfully.
But mostly speeding tickets are collected by fixed and average speed speed cameras now anyway so that the cops can focus on things that actually matter instead, and those fixed cameras are all calibrated to the 10% + 2mph guideline.
Out of interest, how well is the speed limit in somewhere like Montana policed? Do the cops actually pull people for doing 1mph over the current limit?
The reason I ask is that here in the UK the official speed limit on motorways is 70mph, but police can't pull you unless you're doing 10% + 2mph over the limit, so 79mph on a 70mph limit road. This is to ensure that there are no arguments about poor calibration or rounding errors as it's determined to be enough of a margin to rule out that kind of thing making prosecutions easy because it leaves little room for argument that you weren't in fact speeding. That coupled with the fact that all car speedometers actually underestimate and typically by a couple of mph means people are often going around 80 - 82mph or so on their speedometer anyway (though in practice probably more like 77 - 79mph).
I've never seen or heard of anyone in the UK get pulled doing that and only really seen cops pull people once they start hitting 85mph+.
Is it similar in the US? So would people be left alone at 80mph when the current limit is 70mph? what if the limit is raised to 85mph, would the cops then give leeway like they do in the UK letting people do 95mph? Or could you get pulled doing 86mph in the US on an 85mph limit road?
You seem very confused, on one hand you say something, and on the other you deny it. Which is it? Do you mean what you say or not?
Let's quote you:
"Expert systems are not intelligent."
"Neural Networks are debatable. Fundamentally, a Neural Network is a very large set of multi-input gates. Nothing more. If it's trained, then all you've done is simplified the derivation of the gates. You've not added any intelligence."
These quotes direct from your post are unequivocally incorrect. You now seem to be denying you ever said them, but it's incorrect. Both these things are intelligence, but you've declared them not to be using an arbitrary and nonsensical definition of intelligence.
Why say things if you then later wish to claim you don't mean them?
You should probably not try and claim intellectual superiority when you cannot even get right the things you're saying. You've created such a mess now with your argument it's impossible to know what you're thoughts are, on one hand you ramble on declaring things not intelligent based on a nonsense definition, and on the other you deny you ever even said these things even though they're there plain as day.
Perhaps a better option for you in future, is rather than posting comments that are outright incorrect, that when corrected, you just shut up or accept your mistake. Backtracking once someone has educated you despite the evidence of your original incorrect thought is still there clear as day for everyone to see just makes you look not just stupid, but like a stupid arsehole too.
Me? I think I'd rather avoid asking someone who posts incorrect information and then tries to deny all knowledge of it when corrected. If I'm going to ask anyone it's going to be someone who actually knows what the fuck they're on about in the first place. That is not you.
Why exactly is grandma's laptop of intelligence value. What possible benefit does having access to grandma's emails about her chess club offer the intelligence services?
I think you need to stop smoking crack and accept that you don't understand anything about intelligence gathering.
You're assuming that the increase would be at the expense of anyone, rather than simply cause pointless inflation.
There's no reason whatsoever to think that'd happen - everyone else would just demand more money as well to cope with the cost changes and it'd filter up the payscales so that you'd be back at square one.
It would always be a bit of a fiddle anyway given that Scotland isn't energy independent from the rest of the UK because it's a part of the UK, so any shortfalls in renewables would be filled in by power stations in England and Wales (and possibly NI? not sure).
You might as well equally say the English town of Wymeswold in Leicestershire is 100% run off solar power because it's host to the UK's largest (34MW) solar plant. That ignores the fact that of course if there's a period of decreased solar availability due to prolonged heavy cloud cover during extremely short December days that they become entirely dependent on the output of three massive coal power plants (one of which - Drax - is Europe's biggest I believe) to the north in Yorkshire.
Cherry picking a select area for congratulations whilst ignoring the fact they've only achieved what they have because they're heavily reliant on elsewhere to fund it and fill the gaps when it goes wrong seems a bit dishonest regardless of the number manipulation - worse when you consider that a large proportion of Scotland's income that it does use to pay for this kind of thing comes from oil production in the North Sea - what happens to that oil? It sure as hell isn't getting used in a carbon free manner.
A better example is Norway, it still produces a fuck load of oil, but it's invested it sensibly unlike the UK so that it's less dependent on continued exploitation of it, and it's got a heavily renewable power structure without a need to be dependent on anyone else.
You must've been playing a different AC to me because yes I played it, and not it's not as trivial as you're making out.
There are numerous bugs, odd framerate drops that don't even correlate with busy scenes, it can be working on a busy scene just fine, then switch to something simple with bugger all AI about and not much in the scene and framerate just plummets. There are also severe bugs like getting stuck in haycarts which have been in the patchnotes so are kind of hard to deny the existence of.
But even outside the outright bugs, some of it is just bad. The animations of the kids in the prologue were just plain weird. Their eyes weren't right, their eyes kept wandering off in odd directions. Even the voice acting felt lower quality than past ACs. It all just looked very unnatural and strange. I felt like I was playing a YouTube spoof of weird animation glitches, but no it was actually the game itself.
Is the art good? Yes, but it's been animated and coded by a team of absolute amateurs, and it shows. Last year's AC, Black Flag, was really quite good. How adding in some more NPCs and improving the shaders and texture quality made it descend into this I've no idea.
Ubisoft has 3 teams working on Assassins Creed working in 3 year cycles.
So the 2015 release will have been in development for 2 years already, 3 by the time of release, so a 2015 release will make no odds.
It just seems this particular development team is apparently staffed by complete idiots because the quality was shocking throughout, code, models, animation, gameplay, all completely broken.
Black flag last year was absolutely fine on the Xbox One and PS4, despite being equally developed against new hardware for those respective releases and coming out only a year after the previous AC (which in itself was a whole new game- AC3, the first new AC that wasn't just an AC2 mod in years).
The fact they could get Black Flag so right, and AC: Unity so wrong is demonstrative of the fact that at least one of their dev teams is just completely incompetent, but that doesn't mean that a 2015 release couldn't still be awesome if it's developed by a different team.
"But if we shut down undoucmented workers field labor would receive far higher wages and then those jobs might be much more attractive for American workers."
Yeah and then food prices would go up meaning everyone else would expect a pay rise or demand more pay themselves to pay for the increased food costs, or people would just import food from overseas, leading to layoffs in that industry. You end up back at square one.
People expect increasing standards of living, and that means either their salary has to go up faster than their costs like food, mortgages and so forth, or for their salary to stay static but their costs to decline. What you propose increases standards of living for labourers, but squeezes standards of living for everyone else creating a pressure that must also see their salaries increase (leaving the labourers no better off relatively because whilst their salary went up, so did everyone elses and hence so did the cost of everything else) or they will find the goods from a cheaper source - again, by importing food from, say, Mexico. Which is basically not much different from the status quo anyway other than the fact that money is now leaving the country rather than going to immigrants who continue to spend at least some of it in your country.
Normally with interview questions like this you're not going to be expected to do it. Just explain how you'd do it, maybe show the first iteration or two if you're suggesting some kind of iterative solution.
I agree they're usually stupid though. I'm not a fan of this sort of questioning or in fact a fan of questions at all that ask you to solve some specific problem right there and then. It's easy for great candidates to have a moment of forgetfulness under the pressure of an interview.
I prefer to ask questions that they're not going to be able to answer from memory alone and throw a browser with Google in front of them to see if they can do the necessary to find out how they'd go about getting an answer and implementing a solution. I find this much more telling. Good developers seem to not be those who just happen to remember the answer to your arbitrary question because it's what they were doing last week but are completely shit otherwise. No, good developers are the ones that can take a problem they know fuck all about and rapidly begin to formulate a plan for attacking and solving it - shit developers just fall flat here and struggle to figure out where to even begin. It's that problem solving instinct I need, if they have that then languages, frameworks and so forth all become irrelevant- I know if they know how to research and find answer that they can adapt to that in quick time. If they don't have that I'm forever going to have to be telling them how to solve everything at which point I might as well fire them and do their job myself.
No. GCHQ/NSA will choose whatever OS their fucking target is using. Ease of exploitation has nothing to do with it. They're not writing malware for shits and giggles or to steal grandmas pension. They're doing it with a specific intelligence gathering goal in mind. If it's Windows malware then it's because their fucking targets were running windows, nothing more, nothing less. It's stupid to try and turn this into a childish OS fanboy battle as the quality of an OS just isn't a factor in choosing what to target here.
I suppose you think Stuxnet targetted Windows and Siemens control systems too because they were just easier to hack too right? Ignoring the fact it was developed specifically to target Iran's nuclear program which used Windows PCs and Siemens control systems.
You still make the assertion regardless that something that's understood isn't intelligent, which is complete nonsense. There's nothing wrong about anything I've said there- the fact you hit on that particular point doesn't change the fact that almost everything else you said is completely false and based on a really poor definition of "intelligence" that is trivially disproven as a worthwhile definition by my examples.
Long story short? Lobbying by a combination of the likes of Microsoft and News International.
Of all the things Microsoft gets slagged off for one of the worst things it does is often ignored here and that's the amount of lobbying it engaged in within the EU. Have a Google for Microsoft EU lobbying to see how big a problem it is.
I tend not to hate either Google or Microsoft, I like a lot of what Google does and I think Microsoft has improved a lot, but Microsoft's EU lobbying is one of those things that really concerns me (just as Google's increased lobbying against the European Data Protection Directive does).
It's also worth pointing out that regardless of China's GDP and population Google still wasn't ever going to make much money there because it would always be second place to indigineous Chinese search like Baidu.
10% market share in a $20 trillion economy is still going to be far less than 70% in an $18 trillion economy.
Google never had enough marketshare to care about China and neither was it making much progress in growing it's marketshare there and that's why it was happy to pull out. If Google had 70%+ marketshare in China what's the bet it would've bowed to the demands of the Chinese anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
"Always government at fault in Russia, even for things it's not remotely involved in."
Given that the Russian government involves itself in everything from who you have sex with to running of companies, to how sovereign states should vote to annexation of their territory the number of things it's not involved in is pretty much nil anyway.
"Putin is a lot better than he could be"
Yes, he could do worse, he could actually fire the nukes. Unfortunately doing everything but that doesn't exactly act as a valid argument for not viewing him as an absolute wanker with a severe case of little big man syndrome that the world would be better off without.
No you've got it completely backwards, tax law is extremely simple, and that's it's flaw.
When income tax for corporations simply says something along the lines of "You must pay 21% tax on all profits" there's nothing complex in law. What's complex are the tax avoidance and evasion schemes that go out their way to redefine profit as something else.
It's the evasion and avoidance schemes and all the lawyering that goes around justifying profit as not actually being profit that is complex not the tax law itself. When someone says "tax law is complex" what they mean is that "finding ways to legally justify not paying tax is complicated".
Exactly right. Most people in the UK voted for whoever they voted for in acceptance that government would tax corporations in the 20% - 25% range. Thus the government has every right to take this money from corporations in tax. The GP was off his rocker to suggest governments have no right, yes they do, that's the whole fucking point of a democracy - to create legitimate representatives of the people.
"If anything, increased punishment led to more people not only sexually assaulting but outright killing their victim since it reduces the chance of being caught without increasing the punishment significantly anymore."
Do you have any evidence of that? It sounds like pure speculation especially as murder rates have been declining.
"For a proof of the second, see copyright infringement, the ridiculous fines that are today attached to it and anything but a decline in it. With a near zero chance to get caught, nobody cares about punishment as deterrence."
Similarly see some speed cameras. The fact is incidences of speeding and subsequent reductions in accidents have been seen in some areas where speed cameras have been implemented.
Turns out that it's not as simple as you think - penalties in some cases do in fact act as deterrence. It's often a question of risk vs. reward- people don't speed where a fixed speed cameras is situated because they know they'll get caught, there's no maybe, maybe not. In contrast people continue to pirate because there are many countermeasures to continue to avoid getting caught and because even if caught the only evidence that can be gathered is normally too weak for any kind of guilty verdict if actually challenged in court.
As for drink driving? Well many people have lost their job as a result of it if their job required them to have a clean driving license. A good number of these people have turned themselves around and opted to never drink drive again once they regained their license. Others? Sure, there are always those you can never help who will continue to be a danger to themselves and others until they finally lose their life being stupid but it doesn't mean that penalties don't ever work.
This particular scheme is aimed at the handful of respectable people who might just edge over the limit and think it's worth the risk- knowing they may be publicly named and shamed has a good chance of edging those people back away from drink driving. I'm sure the police know full well there's still going to be the terminally drunk types who will never change but I doubt they're expecting a 100% success rate in eliminating drink driving.
It'd be slander in the UK too if it was false.
Which is why they're only going to do this if people fail breathalyser and subsequent blood alcohol tests.
That way even if you don't get convicted on some technicality there's nothing slanderous about saying you were being arrested for being over the limit.
If it's true, it's not slander.
"A few years ago they busted an online child pornography ring and then went around and named people whose credit cards were used without stopping to think that some of those cards were stolen and used fraudulently."
There wasn't any naming and shaming by the police in that case, the problem was just the latter point you mention, which is serious enough in itself, but not an example of naming and shaming gone wrong by the police. Instead it was more an example of police illiteracy towards computer crimes and fraud which is a growing problem nowadays given the trend towards those sorts of crimes.
The only issues with naming and shaming seemed to stem from tip offs to the press by colleagues and such of people who were arrested, but that's really why the UK is still despite the Leveson outcome in desperate need of better press regulation. Quite how we deal with the problem of nosy neighbours with loose lips spreading gossip in the first place upon sight of police officers in their neighbourhood is a different question altogether.
The police are scum because they're trying to cut down the amount of people who die annually to drink driving, many of whom aren't the drunk driver themselves but simply victims of them?
Your speeding argument is equally stupid. The fact is, you know full fucking well if you've been speeding or not. If you haven't and they still accuse you then plead not guilty and contest it, then you get to see the evidence and there wont be any because you know you weren't speeding. If you have then stop moaning and looking for excuses, go lobby your MP to get the speed limit changed if that's what you want.
If you don't know what speed you were doing you were driving without due care and attention anyway which is a charge in itself. Thanks to the leeway given to speeders you can't simply be done for "accidentally" going a few mph over the limit, you have to go markedly over the limit and even then most police forces offer a speeding awareness course upto about 10 - 15mph over the limit (depending on the speed) for first time offenders which means no points on your license and no conviction. To actually end up with points and a speeding conviction you've really got to be trying hard or not paying any attention whatsoever nowadays.
Bad drivers cost lives, often other people's lives who don't deserve it. If you don't want to be named and shamed under this scheme there's an extremely simple solution- don't fail a breathalyser test and then there's no public arrest record they can use to name and shame you in the first place. It's not difficult. If you do fail that test? well you know the law, you knew it was a possible outcome of the risk you took, serves you right for creating a situation where you could kill someone. Don't bitch at the police for actually trying to cut down on the amount of people who don't make it home for Christmas because of some selfish drunken asshole this year.
Road safety is one thing the police, government and car manufacturers combined have done a real good job on over the last decade in the UK, our roads are safer than ever and if they can continue to improve that to make sure perfectly innocent people don't die at the hands of a few selfish ignorant assholes? Good.
Your fuck the police attitude on this is childish and pathetic.
ACPO = Association of Chief Police Officers = the people who set the rules for their particular force that the people doing day to day policing follow. Yes they could change it at any time, but they haven't. The only time discretion is really allowed is if you're being an idiot like driving 35 in a built up zone when it's icy as fuck and it's not even really safe to do 20. They can't arbitrarily ignore their bosses rules and randomly charge different people differently dependent on nothing more than their mood or whatever.
Typically though it's the chief of police in conjunction with the police crime commissioner who decides whether this guideline is followed though, individual officers don't have the discretion to just ignore their boss and the elected representatives (previously a grouping of councillors, now the PCCs).
I'm well aware that there's no legal standing that says they absolutely can't pull you inside that buffer zone (see my post to someone else before you posted for an expansion on that point) but that officers that actually do pull people over can't without having questions to answer to their boss.
So yes, you're absolutely right it's a guideline, but it's a guideline enforced by those responsible for policing priorities on the officers that have to actually do the enforcing of it. Do any forces actually not follow this guideline? I'm pretty sure it's standard practice in the UK to follow it, precisely because the ACPO is largely made up by the very people who choose whether to follow the guidelines in the first place.
"It's a little more insidious in the US, because there is an informal speed buffer of something like "10% + 2mph over the limit," but it is not codified into law anywhere"
To be fair it's the same here in the UK in that respect, it's not codified in law that they can't pull you and try and ticket you inside the buffer, but it's recommended against by the policing federation itself, and the chances are if you refused the ticket and opted for court they'd never waste their time trying to prosecute as they'd then have to prove that there was indeed no issue with their equipment and so forth.
The chances are, the CPS, the UK's prosecution authority would just drop the case as not in the public interest, it just wouldn't be worth spending thousands of pounds in their time pursuing such a case of marginal speeding. It's likely even the judge would look poorly on them, any judge would be questioning why they even want to pursue it given that it would be going against their own policing guidelines; "Our officer was being a dick that day and just really wanted to ticket that guy so opted to ignore the policing guidelines" wouldn't really fly.
Which isn't to say that officers in the UK haven't in the past and are guaranteed not to try it on, if they pull you and you start being a dick to them and so forth they may push the ticket anyway just to make a put and hope you don't opt to go to court, but for the most part if you're actually a sensible, reasonable human being then the cops aren't going to ignore their own guidelines just to be arseholes to you thankfully.
But mostly speeding tickets are collected by fixed and average speed speed cameras now anyway so that the cops can focus on things that actually matter instead, and those fixed cameras are all calibrated to the 10% + 2mph guideline.
Out of interest, how well is the speed limit in somewhere like Montana policed? Do the cops actually pull people for doing 1mph over the current limit?
The reason I ask is that here in the UK the official speed limit on motorways is 70mph, but police can't pull you unless you're doing 10% + 2mph over the limit, so 79mph on a 70mph limit road. This is to ensure that there are no arguments about poor calibration or rounding errors as it's determined to be enough of a margin to rule out that kind of thing making prosecutions easy because it leaves little room for argument that you weren't in fact speeding. That coupled with the fact that all car speedometers actually underestimate and typically by a couple of mph means people are often going around 80 - 82mph or so on their speedometer anyway (though in practice probably more like 77 - 79mph).
I've never seen or heard of anyone in the UK get pulled doing that and only really seen cops pull people once they start hitting 85mph+.
Is it similar in the US? So would people be left alone at 80mph when the current limit is 70mph? what if the limit is raised to 85mph, would the cops then give leeway like they do in the UK letting people do 95mph? Or could you get pulled doing 86mph in the US on an 85mph limit road?
You seem very confused, on one hand you say something, and on the other you deny it. Which is it? Do you mean what you say or not?
Let's quote you:
"Expert systems are not intelligent."
"Neural Networks are debatable. Fundamentally, a Neural Network is a very large set of multi-input gates. Nothing more. If it's trained, then all you've done is simplified the derivation of the gates. You've not added any intelligence."
These quotes direct from your post are unequivocally incorrect. You now seem to be denying you ever said them, but it's incorrect. Both these things are intelligence, but you've declared them not to be using an arbitrary and nonsensical definition of intelligence.
Why say things if you then later wish to claim you don't mean them?
You should probably not try and claim intellectual superiority when you cannot even get right the things you're saying. You've created such a mess now with your argument it's impossible to know what you're thoughts are, on one hand you ramble on declaring things not intelligent based on a nonsense definition, and on the other you deny you ever even said these things even though they're there plain as day.
Perhaps a better option for you in future, is rather than posting comments that are outright incorrect, that when corrected, you just shut up or accept your mistake. Backtracking once someone has educated you despite the evidence of your original incorrect thought is still there clear as day for everyone to see just makes you look not just stupid, but like a stupid arsehole too.
Me? I think I'd rather avoid asking someone who posts incorrect information and then tries to deny all knowledge of it when corrected. If I'm going to ask anyone it's going to be someone who actually knows what the fuck they're on about in the first place. That is not you.
You know you make absolutely no sense right?
Why exactly is grandma's laptop of intelligence value. What possible benefit does having access to grandma's emails about her chess club offer the intelligence services?
I think you need to stop smoking crack and accept that you don't understand anything about intelligence gathering.
You're assuming that the increase would be at the expense of anyone, rather than simply cause pointless inflation.
There's no reason whatsoever to think that'd happen - everyone else would just demand more money as well to cope with the cost changes and it'd filter up the payscales so that you'd be back at square one.
It would always be a bit of a fiddle anyway given that Scotland isn't energy independent from the rest of the UK because it's a part of the UK, so any shortfalls in renewables would be filled in by power stations in England and Wales (and possibly NI? not sure).
You might as well equally say the English town of Wymeswold in Leicestershire is 100% run off solar power because it's host to the UK's largest (34MW) solar plant. That ignores the fact that of course if there's a period of decreased solar availability due to prolonged heavy cloud cover during extremely short December days that they become entirely dependent on the output of three massive coal power plants (one of which - Drax - is Europe's biggest I believe) to the north in Yorkshire.
Cherry picking a select area for congratulations whilst ignoring the fact they've only achieved what they have because they're heavily reliant on elsewhere to fund it and fill the gaps when it goes wrong seems a bit dishonest regardless of the number manipulation - worse when you consider that a large proportion of Scotland's income that it does use to pay for this kind of thing comes from oil production in the North Sea - what happens to that oil? It sure as hell isn't getting used in a carbon free manner.
A better example is Norway, it still produces a fuck load of oil, but it's invested it sensibly unlike the UK so that it's less dependent on continued exploitation of it, and it's got a heavily renewable power structure without a need to be dependent on anyone else.
You must've been playing a different AC to me because yes I played it, and not it's not as trivial as you're making out.
There are numerous bugs, odd framerate drops that don't even correlate with busy scenes, it can be working on a busy scene just fine, then switch to something simple with bugger all AI about and not much in the scene and framerate just plummets. There are also severe bugs like getting stuck in haycarts which have been in the patchnotes so are kind of hard to deny the existence of.
But even outside the outright bugs, some of it is just bad. The animations of the kids in the prologue were just plain weird. Their eyes weren't right, their eyes kept wandering off in odd directions. Even the voice acting felt lower quality than past ACs. It all just looked very unnatural and strange. I felt like I was playing a YouTube spoof of weird animation glitches, but no it was actually the game itself.
Is the art good? Yes, but it's been animated and coded by a team of absolute amateurs, and it shows. Last year's AC, Black Flag, was really quite good. How adding in some more NPCs and improving the shaders and texture quality made it descend into this I've no idea.
Ubisoft has 3 teams working on Assassins Creed working in 3 year cycles.
So the 2015 release will have been in development for 2 years already, 3 by the time of release, so a 2015 release will make no odds.
It just seems this particular development team is apparently staffed by complete idiots because the quality was shocking throughout, code, models, animation, gameplay, all completely broken.
Black flag last year was absolutely fine on the Xbox One and PS4, despite being equally developed against new hardware for those respective releases and coming out only a year after the previous AC (which in itself was a whole new game- AC3, the first new AC that wasn't just an AC2 mod in years).
The fact they could get Black Flag so right, and AC: Unity so wrong is demonstrative of the fact that at least one of their dev teams is just completely incompetent, but that doesn't mean that a 2015 release couldn't still be awesome if it's developed by a different team.
"But if we shut down undoucmented workers field labor would receive far higher wages and then those jobs might be much more attractive for American workers."
Yeah and then food prices would go up meaning everyone else would expect a pay rise or demand more pay themselves to pay for the increased food costs, or people would just import food from overseas, leading to layoffs in that industry. You end up back at square one.
People expect increasing standards of living, and that means either their salary has to go up faster than their costs like food, mortgages and so forth, or for their salary to stay static but their costs to decline. What you propose increases standards of living for labourers, but squeezes standards of living for everyone else creating a pressure that must also see their salaries increase (leaving the labourers no better off relatively because whilst their salary went up, so did everyone elses and hence so did the cost of everything else) or they will find the goods from a cheaper source - again, by importing food from, say, Mexico. Which is basically not much different from the status quo anyway other than the fact that money is now leaving the country rather than going to immigrants who continue to spend at least some of it in your country.
Normally with interview questions like this you're not going to be expected to do it. Just explain how you'd do it, maybe show the first iteration or two if you're suggesting some kind of iterative solution.
I agree they're usually stupid though. I'm not a fan of this sort of questioning or in fact a fan of questions at all that ask you to solve some specific problem right there and then. It's easy for great candidates to have a moment of forgetfulness under the pressure of an interview.
I prefer to ask questions that they're not going to be able to answer from memory alone and throw a browser with Google in front of them to see if they can do the necessary to find out how they'd go about getting an answer and implementing a solution. I find this much more telling. Good developers seem to not be those who just happen to remember the answer to your arbitrary question because it's what they were doing last week but are completely shit otherwise. No, good developers are the ones that can take a problem they know fuck all about and rapidly begin to formulate a plan for attacking and solving it - shit developers just fall flat here and struggle to figure out where to even begin. It's that problem solving instinct I need, if they have that then languages, frameworks and so forth all become irrelevant- I know if they know how to research and find answer that they can adapt to that in quick time. If they don't have that I'm forever going to have to be telling them how to solve everything at which point I might as well fire them and do their job myself.
Maybe not the Sony Music rootkit but they have forced various bits of intrusive DRM on us over the years.
So yes, there's a certain irony in their systems getting infected when for years they've been infecting the systems of others.
"Assuming that NSA/GCHQ are behind this, then they will be targeting what they can and what ppl run."
Why?
"Instead, NSA/GCHQ targeted windows because it is easy."
Again, why?
Why would you target something because it's easy even though it's of absolutely no intelligence value?
What the fuck?
No. GCHQ/NSA will choose whatever OS their fucking target is using. Ease of exploitation has nothing to do with it. They're not writing malware for shits and giggles or to steal grandmas pension. They're doing it with a specific intelligence gathering goal in mind. If it's Windows malware then it's because their fucking targets were running windows, nothing more, nothing less. It's stupid to try and turn this into a childish OS fanboy battle as the quality of an OS just isn't a factor in choosing what to target here.
I suppose you think Stuxnet targetted Windows and Siemens control systems too because they were just easier to hack too right? Ignoring the fact it was developed specifically to target Iran's nuclear program which used Windows PCs and Siemens control systems.
What exactly am I "wrong" about?
You still make the assertion regardless that something that's understood isn't intelligent, which is complete nonsense. There's nothing wrong about anything I've said there- the fact you hit on that particular point doesn't change the fact that almost everything else you said is completely false and based on a really poor definition of "intelligence" that is trivially disproven as a worthwhile definition by my examples.
I wondered the same thing for a long while, why Google when it's not even close to the worst tech offender? See my post here for an answer:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Long story short? Lobbying by a combination of the likes of Microsoft and News International.
Of all the things Microsoft gets slagged off for one of the worst things it does is often ignored here and that's the amount of lobbying it engaged in within the EU. Have a Google for Microsoft EU lobbying to see how big a problem it is.
I tend not to hate either Google or Microsoft, I like a lot of what Google does and I think Microsoft has improved a lot, but Microsoft's EU lobbying is one of those things that really concerns me (just as Google's increased lobbying against the European Data Protection Directive does).
It's also worth pointing out that regardless of China's GDP and population Google still wasn't ever going to make much money there because it would always be second place to indigineous Chinese search like Baidu.
10% market share in a $20 trillion economy is still going to be far less than 70% in an $18 trillion economy.
Google never had enough marketshare to care about China and neither was it making much progress in growing it's marketshare there and that's why it was happy to pull out. If Google had 70%+ marketshare in China what's the bet it would've bowed to the demands of the Chinese anyway?