Ugh you appear to be one of those many dudes that just do web stuff but try hard to make it sound much cleverer and more important than it really is by using a bunch of crapspeak.

For example self-healing software sounds very AI but its just crapspeak for fault-tolerant, which is pretty much how any _good_ software engineer would intuitively design a system without even thinkng twice about why. I remember when it was just called common sense and experience.

Working in niche areas is great while it lasts (I know because I do too), but there's always a high chance that something new will entirely invalidate your niche's entire reason for existence within a year or two, especially if is all based around knowledge of one particularly obscure tool or technology.
Enjoy the ride but stay fresh with other more geneally marketable skills too, so that when the bubble inevitably bursts you're still employable for youir other skills

if its academic or for fun, yes.
If its just to get a job then no, unless you want to gamble with the chance of getting a job in a niche market.

Because not one of its components is a mug of hot tea. Where are they going to get the source of brownian motion from otherwise?

>> it doesn't excuse Clinton's behavior by saying that everyone else is corrupt. That's just a cop out.

I agree and actually didn't (intend to) say that. I was more lamenting the lack of choice than anything else.

>> I think that there are some honorable politicians but once they get to the top of the heap all the morals are left behind.

I see ith the other way actually. I think that its only after they have gotten so high there's nowhere left to go that they stop fucking people over and start worring about their sould/legacy/image/payback.
Most 2-term presidents do some token thing close to the end. Bill Gates is a perfect example of an absolute bastard who fucked over many people, now trying to get perceived as a good guy (while still actually fucking people over).

You're not trying to suggest that there's any such thing as a US politician that isn't corrupt are you?

The system itself is making sure there can't be... politicians have to "play the game" in order to get anywhere in the first place, so the system is actually weeding out the really honest guys (i.e. the guys that we actually want to run) by making sure they can't even get a start.

This is also why all the parties get involved in dirt-digging and mud-slinging... they all know there's no way any candidate can be actually clean. You may have to dig to find it, but the corruption must be there somewhere.

>> AI Experts In High Demand

What they really mean is business data-mining experts. Unfortunately AI expert just sounds cooler and is easier to say, no matter how far from the truth it is.

No I really wasn't trolling but I guess being marked as a troll exactly justfied my last point.

>> a review that is egregiously, over-the-top sexist in nature.

I don't see that as being self-evident at all, In fact I can't even see what part of the above could be considered sexist or even controversial if you analyse what was actually said.

There seems to be 3 potential points of issue:

* The comment that as the researchers didnt include a male would mean their paper risks being gender-biassed seems perfectly reasonable, especially as the papaer itself is about gender balance.

* The statment that on average, most men can probably run a mile faster than most women. Check any sports timings. This seems to be beyond doubt to any but the most unreasonable person.

* That men's papers are on average higher quality than women's. Since I have no personal experience of reveiewing papers submitted for publishing I have no valid comment either way, however lets do some logical ananlysis:
If we assume that the stated position of their own paper is in fact correct; that men tend to publish more papers, and in more prestigious academic journals, than women. It therefore necessarily follows that men actually must have more experience on what it takes to get their papers past reviewers (i.e. to impress them) than women.

There are way too many "peecee" people (and apparently you may be one of them) that see any acknowlegdement or even mention of gender differneces (especially the ones where women don't do as well as men) as automatic cause to yell "sexist". This is patently ridiculous given the existence of physiological and mental gender differences is undeniable. Shouting "sexist" at every mention of these really does not do anyone any favours, least of all, the women that are fighting to attain actual equality.

Since there doesn't seem to be any effective oversight of the NSA (or CIA) or any actual consequences when they break the law, why would anyone seriously expect the NSA would actually stop mass collection or even give a shit about this bill passing?

The expensive mass-surveilance mechanisms and technologies are already developed and in place. Unless all the secret data centres and backbone taps are identified and physically destroyed in front of independent monitors, There's not a hope in hell that the NSA and their buddies won't just keep using it no matter what some stupid bill says.

>> Please do some research first into bitcoin before spreading misinformation.

and you please stop being an arrogant dick.
As it happens I already know quite a lot about bitcoin.

>> The problem is that they'll run out of bitcoins to sell,

No, they just need to keep busting drug dealers that take bitcoins. if those hauls over time net less bitcoins it just means the popularity of bitcoin itself is going away, therefore the number of bitcoins they need to sell to affect the market is less.

>> mining produces smaller and smaller amounts over time.
True but thats controlled by difficulty which is adjusted montlhy, and does not necessarily always increase. In fact its decreased several times lately, since there is no new generation of hardware that can mine bitcoins significantly faster or with using less power to justify the cost of keeping mining given a continuing increase in difficulty and a continuing cost of electricity. In fact we're already well past the break even point for most miners.
The government have no such problem, since unlike every other miner, their goal is not to make a net profit, but to crash the bitcoin economy at any cost.

>> At least it can't be devalued like government's magic paper.

Sure it can. The government already got their hands on 30,000 ( worth about $18 million then) of Silk Road's bitcoins and more from other busts, and the NSA already has masive computers that could mine bitcoins like there's no tomorrow.

Complete conspiracy theorizing herre, but it really wouldn't be hard or even unlikely for the US government to use any bitcoins they recover from criminal activity, along with power-mining to keep anonymously bulk-selling bitcoins at a big loss just to crash the whole bitcoin market. Their motivation would presumably be to both kill anything that faciliates the existence of black-markets and also kill anything that competes even slightly with the almighty $.

>> This is an oppressive government with immoral laws that are being circumvented.

Thats also true of literally every government in the world.

>> At the end of 2014, for example, the peso was worth 25 percent less than it was at the beginning of the year.

Even as someone who believed in Bitcoin enough to spend significant $ on mining hardware, I know bitcoin has been far more volatile and has devalued far more than that in the same period.