Actually, he only said the average was 40 and it was (or around 45, depending on source). He just neglected to point out that it was because of excessive infant mortality.

No. They would not. Not unless you count shitty little hand held movies thrown together by a group of friends as being the best you want. The creation of good movies is simply a very expensive endeavor and even college films cost more than someone not actually in the class underwritten by the college can afford to do it. And *those* are almost exclusively horrid crap.

Agreed. Determining that solution is part of the job, not your home life. Besides, part of finding that solution yields documentation for the project if you do it properly.

Said the commenter who equated being anti-union to being right wing. I programmed/designed/analyzed for an entire career without the need for someone to represent me. I represented myself. If you're smart enough to code for a living, you're smart enough to do the same.

How in holy hell does that make it science fiction? You just buried the bar for the lowest definition under the earth rendering The Wonderful Wizard of Oz into science fiction.

Those two goals are in no way incompatible. There's no need to employ sloppy writing to generate emotion unless your goal is a high score on What's Wrong With.

So why has every environmental initiative in the past 40 years been pushed by the Democrats and resisted by the Republicans?
How the fuck did this get +4 insightful? The Kosdot is strong today. Let's go back less than 40 yrs ago to the Byrd-Hagel resolution that passed 95-0 in the US senate prior to Clinton signing the Kyoto Protocol. Do you honestly believe there were 95 republican senators at that time? Hint there wasn't.

Both of you apparently are unaware of the gay Republicans. In short, you're both wrong.

You do not get to choose what he believes himself to be in order to make his statements fit into your narrative.

Nope, not what he said.

Everything you say may indeed be true, but the point of the program is to find influences between artists, not similarities in their works.

If they need to check with living artists for validation, the entire exercise is worthless as the bulk of the artists are dead.

I still think that the paintings are likely unrelated to each other, but it seems that both artists were thinking similar thoughts when they chose to paint these. And that's the sophistication of the algorithm.

Unfortunately, it's not the point of the algorithm, so that sophistication is projected upon it by you, not intrinsic to it's conception. You yourself invalidate the point of the algorithm with the beginning of your sentence. There were no influences between the artists, only similarities. Which is to be expected, as they are humans painting human activities.

You can't use mathematical computation an example that's anywhere near similar to this as similarity in art is far more than if both items contain a rectangle. The worthiness of this particular algorithm depends on the percentage of false positives. Only going by the items in the article, I count three for three false positives. A waste of human time to review.

Running arbitrary code doesn't meany anything more than a jump table. Humans are far more capable of altering their thinking patterns, studying and adopting new pattern on their own and even forgetting things, making for new overall outlooks. Short response: you are so completely wrong.