Cumberbatch also played Cummings. Not a sympathetic figure. Actors do not like to play good or bad real people, they like to olay challenging showcasing roles.
>An Alaskan said it best when he said that he feels sorry for those of us on the mainland, because Alaskans can live off the land.
I am not sure I understand what that means. Is it sarcastic? I need a sarcasm sign.
Did he really mean that Alaskans live off the land (which is patently not true - Alaska is heavily subsidized) - then I do not really see a point. How is that relates to "We are raising the cost of entry while simultaneously lowering the return on investment."
If he is sarcastic then I do not see the connection either.
His example is unconvincing, as you rightfully pointed out, but general look at the history of humanity shows that we recovered from every single problem we had.:-) In this generic aspect he was right.
The solution would be some kind of society where (a) a lot more is given to unemployed than now in US (b) a lot more policing (Orwellian to the bone, Kafkaesque in implementation, Huxleyan in the results) is done against disenfranchised population depressed for the reason of being useless to the society.
>Do you have any idea what losing 25% of the jobs effectively overnight (that's what "at risk" implies) means?
I do not have the slightest idea either, since I do not know how many workers are for each of the jobs. I seriously doubt that researchers analyzed "thousands of specific tasks within each occupation". They analyzed some occupation and then they extrapolated it on the rest of the jobs.
A simple crucial information needed. Without this information we can't say.
Logically, I would assume that researchers would start with analyzing the most common jobs, not the piano tuners, or ALGOL programmers. That would actually mean that most likely (only if the researchers are believable, I am not sold on that) much more than 25% of the total working population is affected.
Instead of even counting 25% of jobs they should counted the number of professionals in each of the jobs they really "analyzed".
Privacy is gone. Stop beating the dead horse. Stop all the anti-government cowboy bullshit. You look like dumbass backwater hicks.
The whole vector of progress is government getting more and more power. Orwellian and Kafkaesque worlds are as inevitable as climate change. The only way you got government less powerful is to throw away your phone (like this old dumbass idol of other old farts did), then all the tanks and go back to spear hunting into the jungle.
Otherwise, eat it. Learn to live with it. Learn to live with all your data being used to personalize advertisement to you.
The only war path is ad-blocking. Put all of your effort into this war: block ads, block ads, block ads. Fight for your sanity. Fight against people who keep saying that black is white.
Privacy is gone and people who are holding on to cowboy pseudo-ideology of XIX century look like imbeciles.
>This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...
Let me rephrase then:
Verbatim:
> I do use portable phones, lots of different ones. If I needed to call someone right now, I would ask one of you, "Could you please make a call for me?"
> I do use portable phones, lots of different ones. If I needed to call someone right now, I would ask one of you, "Could you please make a call for me?"
Swapping one set of problems for another is a favorite human activity. It does not reduce problems, but for a while, people feel like they have accomplished something. Having this rule in a polarized country of hours would lead to plenty events like no-confidence which would increase government instability.
Our lawmakers use filibuster, imagine what would they do with budget votes every time executive and legislative branches are controlled by different parties?
The root of the problem is not a particular set of rules. The root of the problem is that there is nothing that unites people, there is no common or prevalent ideology of any kind. People are not killing each other _en masse_ in United States only because the country is filthy rich.
"Europe has a different set of rules" Did it help much during recent calamity (refugee crisis)?
Haven't you forgotten Italy from 20-30 years ago?
The only commonality in US is greed. Democrats represent the greed of people who have less, Reps represent the greed of people who have more.
That's all there is to it. Technological progress destroyed ideology, and only pseudo-ideology ("liberal" ideology) is left.
I am okay with the costs of the ACA. Because moving to a public healthcare system would be cheaper than the current corporate system.
ACA has nothing to do with public healthcare system. Public healthcare system is paid from taxes. ACA is just advance payment for treatment that does not happen.
Paying $1500 a month is not an option even for upper middle class. That's $18,000 a year. Vast majority of this payment is "insurance" against $100,000 surgeries and $3000 a night hospital beds.
ACA is what made US a laughingstock of Europe. Russia has more affordable healthcare than US.
>If DNA testing relied on alleles that mutated only once every several hundred generations, they would be useless in estimating whether you are related to your first cousin or grandfather, because with recombination rates that slow, you would match pretty much everybody
That's not the kind of testing we are talking about. We are talking about tests that relates us to different ethnic groups, races.
>DNA tests can tell the difference between a sibling and a cousin (with some margin of error--it's all probabilities); this is possible only because they look for changes that occurred within a few generations.
Not the changes, combinations of alleles.
I am not sure we are advancing anywhere in this conversation.
DNA tests look for alleles. You are getting closer in:
> typically, once every few generations
Except that it's not few generations, but hundreds of generations. That's why the genetic tracing back to history is possible. They do not detect mutations, they rely on exactly the opposite: stability of genome in alleles.
Going to the movies is like subscription without subscription to 50 movies. You always pay per view for a selection of 50 movies. Regardless of the price, there are pros and cons:
Pros: enthusiastic audience, large immersive screen, excellent surround sound, excellently tasting junk food, absence of distractions dictated by anthropomorphized authority figures from giant screen. Cons: enthusiastic audience, logistics burden, peer pressure to eat junk food, inability to discreetly check where else you have seen that bold actor
It is very very expensive form of entertainment compared to cable television or internet streaming. The only more expensive form of entertainment is gaming.
Obviously, it will exist, because Broadway and community theater still exists, and $2000 dollars to three tenors (yes, I lived under the rock for 20 years). Different people will go there.
Very few people from the Internet entertainment crowd will go to the movies and all the movie goers will have Internet entertainment at home as well.
My senior advisor who passed away 20 years ago taught us that true scientific discovery happens and is recognized when you make it sound so obvious that everybody is astonished: "how on earth we did not see this before?".
What was astonishing in early history of science was the mesmerizing simplistic beauty of new: epicycles were tedious, boring, repetitive, ad hoccerish (adhoccer.adhockey player - you heard that here first), while Kepler's laws were weeping-inducing elegant and aesthetically pleasing.
Nowadays it's the opposite: take the protein structure prediction: we started with simple and beautiful ab initio models on every level of prediction and ended up with epicycles of HMMs.
Mutations are not part of it, at the sites being sequenced. If mutations could have played a significant part in it, the whole thing would have made a little sense.
At this level scientists are looking at shuffling of the same genetic cards that were the same for many years, not the markings on them left by professional hasslers.
Slashdot Mirror
Cumberbatch also played Cummings. Not a sympathetic figure. Actors do not like to play good or bad real people, they like to olay challenging showcasing roles.
Robots do not join MS13, they only join Skynet.
>An Alaskan said it best when he said that he feels sorry for those of us on the mainland, because Alaskans can live off the land.
I am not sure I understand what that means. Is it sarcastic? I need a sarcasm sign.
Did he really mean that Alaskans live off the land (which is patently not true - Alaska is heavily subsidized) - then I do not really see a point. How is that relates to "We are raising the cost of entry while simultaneously lowering the return on investment."
If he is sarcastic then I do not see the connection either.
?
His example is unconvincing, as you rightfully pointed out, but general look at the history of humanity shows that we recovered from every single problem we had. :-) In this generic aspect he was right.
The solution would be some kind of society where (a) a lot more is given to unemployed than now in US (b) a lot more policing (Orwellian to the bone, Kafkaesque in implementation, Huxleyan in the results) is done against disenfranchised population depressed for the reason of being useless to the society.
>Do you have any idea what losing 25% of the jobs effectively overnight (that's what "at risk" implies) means?
I do not have the slightest idea either, since I do not know how many workers are for each of the jobs. I seriously doubt that researchers analyzed "thousands of specific tasks within each occupation". They analyzed some occupation and then they extrapolated it on the rest of the jobs.
A simple crucial information needed. Without this information we can't say.
Logically, I would assume that researchers would start with analyzing the most common jobs, not the piano tuners, or ALGOL programmers. That would actually mean that most likely (only if the researchers are believable, I am not sold on that) much more than 25% of the total working population is affected.
Instead of even counting 25% of jobs they should counted the number of professionals in each of the jobs they really "analyzed".
Did you see any reactions from folks who are behind ad-blockers software?
Privacy is gone. Stop beating the dead horse. Stop all the anti-government cowboy bullshit. You look like dumbass backwater hicks.
The whole vector of progress is government getting more and more power. Orwellian and Kafkaesque worlds are as inevitable as climate change. The only way you got government less powerful is to throw away your phone (like this old dumbass idol of other old farts did), then all the tanks and go back to spear hunting into the jungle.
Otherwise, eat it. Learn to live with it. Learn to live with all your data being used to personalize advertisement to you.
The only war path is ad-blocking. Put all of your effort into this war: block ads, block ads, block ads. Fight for your sanity. Fight against people who keep saying that black is white.
Privacy is gone and people who are holding on to cowboy pseudo-ideology of XIX century look like imbeciles.
>This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...
Let me rephrase then:
Verbatim:
> I do use portable phones, lots of different ones. If I needed to call someone right now, I would ask one of you, "Could you please make a call for me?"
Verbatim:
> I do use portable phones, lots of different ones. If I needed to call someone right now, I would ask one of you, "Could you please make a call for me?"
>Fifth, although you think I'm a total idiot who should step away from the keyboard
You are presuming too much and losing your nerve.
Simple question: does regexping mechanism described allow good old blocking by domain or not?
>Even if you don't think ads are immoral
No. Don't even offer this option. There are two kinds of people: imbeciles and people who are in all-out uncompromising war against all ads.
Advertisement must die, must be declared a crime by the state. It's an unconditional pure evil, nothing else.
"passion" for self righteous behavior
Swapping one set of problems for another is a favorite human activity. It does not reduce problems, but for a while, people feel like they have accomplished something. Having this rule in a polarized country of hours would lead to plenty events like no-confidence which would increase government instability.
Our lawmakers use filibuster, imagine what would they do with budget votes every time executive and legislative branches are controlled by different parties?
The root of the problem is not a particular set of rules. The root of the problem is that there is nothing that unites people, there is no common or prevalent ideology of any kind. People are not killing each other _en masse_ in United States only because the country is filthy rich.
"Europe has a different set of rules" Did it help much during recent calamity (refugee crisis)?
Haven't you forgotten Italy from 20-30 years ago?
The only commonality in US is greed. Democrats represent the greed of people who have less, Reps represent the greed of people who have more.
That's all there is to it. Technological progress destroyed ideology, and only pseudo-ideology ("liberal" ideology) is left.
The only ideology left in the world is Islam.
ACA has nothing to do with public healthcare system. Public healthcare system is paid from taxes. ACA is just advance payment for treatment that does not happen.
Paying $1500 a month is not an option even for upper middle class. That's $18,000 a year. Vast majority of this payment is "insurance" against $100,000 surgeries and $3000 a night hospital beds.
ACA is what made US a laughingstock of Europe. Russia has more affordable healthcare than US.
No, they title should NOT be.
>that the character of Aquaman himself was much more fun than the rest of the DC universe heroes
Since I do not give a rat ass which of the superheros are Marvel or DC, I would like to point out that Deadpool has a lot of fun too.
The horde existed since the dawn of Internet. Hence the term Eternal September (I miss using HTML syntax :-) )
>If DNA testing relied on alleles that mutated only once every several hundred generations, they would be useless in estimating whether you are related to your first cousin or grandfather, because with recombination rates that slow, you would match pretty much everybody
That's not the kind of testing we are talking about. We are talking about tests that relates us to different ethnic groups, races.
>DNA tests can tell the difference between a sibling and a cousin (with some margin of error--it's all probabilities); this is possible only because they look for changes that occurred within a few generations.
Not the changes, combinations of alleles.
I am not sure we are advancing anywhere in this conversation.
DNA tests look for alleles. You are getting closer in:
> typically, once every few generations
Except that it's not few generations, but hundreds of generations. That's why the genetic tracing back to history is possible. They do not detect mutations, they rely on exactly the opposite: stability of genome in alleles.
Going to the movies is like subscription without subscription to 50 movies. You always pay per view for a selection of 50 movies. Regardless of the price, there are pros and cons:
Pros: enthusiastic audience, large immersive screen, excellent surround sound, excellently tasting junk food, absence of distractions dictated by anthropomorphized authority figures from giant screen.
Cons: enthusiastic audience, logistics burden, peer pressure to eat junk food, inability to discreetly check where else you have seen that bold actor
It is very very expensive form of entertainment compared to cable television or internet streaming. The only more expensive form of entertainment is gaming.
Obviously, it will exist, because Broadway and community theater still exists, and $2000 dollars to three tenors (yes, I lived under the rock for 20 years). Different people will go there.
Very few people from the Internet entertainment crowd will go to the movies and all the movie goers will have Internet entertainment at home as well.
Obviously I have very little idea of how poker works.
seriously, slashdot.
My senior advisor who passed away 20 years ago taught us that true scientific discovery happens and is recognized when you make it sound so obvious that everybody is astonished: "how on earth we did not see this before?".
What was astonishing in early history of science was the mesmerizing simplistic beauty of new: epicycles were tedious, boring, repetitive, ad hoccerish (adhoccer.adhockey player - you heard that here first), while Kepler's laws were weeping-inducing elegant and aesthetically pleasing.
Nowadays it's the opposite: take the protein structure prediction: we started with simple and beautiful ab initio models on every level of prediction and ended up with epicycles of HMMs.
Mutations are not part of it, at the sites being sequenced. If mutations could have played a significant part in it, the whole thing would have made a little sense.
At this level scientists are looking at shuffling of the same genetic cards that were the same for many years, not the markings on them left by professional hasslers.