Great list of steps. But I'd like to point out that even if you are following all those rules to the letter, you can still get called a creep. The threshold for what is acceptable is much higher the more social skills you got. To take a relation forward you have to cross the line some way or the other. Preferably in the safest manner possible, when you have assured that she is ready for a kiss attempt and you have controlled every variable you can think of. But there is still the possibility that she is married and you misread all her signals totally. Which is a risk that has to be taken. So if you are to scared of ever doing anything for fear of being called a creep, then you will not get any chicks.

Come on.. Do you really think it is so bad that they are asking for some compension for, in your own words, their "awesome" software? If you can't stomach the ads, the premium version retails for $24.95. Damn cheapskates.

That's not an argument in favor of legalizing drugs, but an argument for restricting the access of tobacco and alcohol. Such as only selling it to adults, in bars, outlawing attempts to market it to children and so on.

Let's assume all other drugs are no more dangerous or costly for society than alcohol. Then if the cost for alcohol is X, and alcohol + N other drugs are legal, the total cost becomes (X+1)*N which is clearly much larger than X. It is a really stupid argument to say that "well other drugs aren't any more bad than alcohol, so they should be legal too!" because alcohol is bad enough.

In my days those "fixers" were known as Fairlight and Razor 1911 among others. They were seen as living gods and provided thousands of "fixed" games. None of them got rich on it but did it for fun and fame. The readme files even encouraged you to buy the games they ripped if you liked them.

Disturbingly, there is a lot of truth to that statement. That's why formalized performance reviews are a good thing, otherwise height easily unconciously becomes the only factor taken into account. It also suggests that the best way for both men and women to improve their work performance is to wear high heeled shoes. The corporate world is a funny place. :)

Yes that is true. But if you are able to improve upon their bot filtering algorithm, I'm sure Google would love to have a talk with you. ;)

And if that plugin gets popular enough, they will request it to be taken down too! Google aren't stupid -- they are perfectly capable of protecting their content if their lawyers want it. For example, it is basically impossible to automate search queries because Google really hates it when you using their search engine but are not exposed to their sponsored results. They have very sophisticated means of determining when it is likey that a user is a bot and will then serve up an annoying captcha. They will do the same thing with youtube. The difference is that, while search engine results are "theirs" and copying them can be seen as plagiarizing, taking the audio of youtube videos cannot because the videos aren't Googles property, they are owned by the youtubers who created them.

According to the law it is probably alright for them to do what the hell they want with the content users uploads, but from a moral standpoint I think what they are doing is highly unethical. Google has gained enormously on everyone who uploads videos, whether it is original stuff, remixes of other material or dvd rips of popular tv shows. I think they should return the kindness and allow as unrestricted usage of the content on youtube as possible.

I'm the same. But the option is listening to music or hearing my coworkers constant chattering. I choose the former option.

Even my stupid cellphone has an audio detection feature. You let it record a few seconds of music and it sends the data to a server that replies with the name of the song, the album and the band. The same methods can easily be applied to other types of content such as video. All thanks to Bayesian networks and other advanced classification algorithms. Only idiots claim it is impossible to filter content. What smarter minds claim, is that it is impossible to correctly filter all content all the time. There will always be false positives and true negatives that the algoritms fail on and a human must intervene.

So... how come she's your ex-wife?

Most of us didn't roll any dice at all, but had a third party buy useless Facebook shares for us. All OECD countries put their retirement funds on the stock market (which is total insanity but what can you do?). Idiots managing those funds then thought it was a gansta good idea to get in early on the fb action. If there was relevant information not relayed to them but to other investors then that is equivalent to insider trading. A textbook example of capitalism forcing everyone to play the same game (on the stock market) but then giving some superior rules.

Now I've also read the article and I can't see where it says the chips are deterministic. if they are, then you are of course right. However, if their edge cases are known on beforehand that is even better as software (or the chip itself) could just delegate the calculation to the main cpu. Or you could have two inexact chips working in parallel as long as their sets of edge cases does not intersect.

Before someone comes up with that stupid remark, not much. :) If the chips are 15 times as efficient as normal ones, it means that you could run for instance four in parallel and rerun each calculation in which one of them differs. That way you would both get both accurate calculations and power savings. Modify the number of chips to run in parallel depending on the accuracy and efficiency needed.

Right, but that is a secondary cause. Additives may enhance your appetite, but it is still the eating of the extra calories that is causing the obesity. SSRI may also increase your appetite, but one wouldn't suggest it as a cause.