Comment Re:Imagination (Score 1) 163
Defend. All children? Or children of parents who can afford an $80 toy?
Defend. All children? Or children of parents who can afford an $80 toy?
You are a horrible person. Not that I endorse that, but argument ad absurdum is an art. I love your idiocy.
The creepy part is not a doll that listens, it is the manufacturer listening as well. An interactive doll that operates without an internet connection would be a great piece of technology.
Is the manufacturer listening? There's at least one data analysis team lead listening, but is that person doing anything more than tuning the algorithm? Are they looking for keywords to be able to sell additional products, or partner with other sellers?
Technology in itself is neither good nor bad, it all depends on how you use it. Embracing every new development out of love for technology is just as irrational as rejecting it out of fear.
Read the first quote, and the second quote. Is this still true of manufacturers? Do we have any hard facts other than the unfounded assumptions of the masses that this information is being somehow data-mined?
Normally, I would assume that we don't need facts. But your second quote has persuaded me that people here and elsewhere might be reacting on fear. And yes, I'm using your own quotes against you. Because you're not consistent.
So, is a manufacturer that respects privacy while delivering a requested product evil? Or is it just fear of the unknown operating here?
OR you know
... teaching your kids about how commercials work, trying to get them to buy useless toys and crappy "food" products.
That sounds a lot like uninformed optimism.
Adults who know how commercials work are still swayed by them.
Also, when the majority of adults can't effectively cope with commercials, how can you in any way say that kids should be effectively able to cope?
What I heard you say is "Don't let kids watch TV ever, unless you can remove the commercials." You may not have meant it that way, but that's what you said.
You also said, don't let them be in the room when mommy and daddy are watching TV. Or listening to the radio. Or in the supermarket. Or, really, anywhere outside the home due to billboards and all manner of decorated vehicles.
I am never going to develop a website using a tablet or phone or anything other than a desktop with shitloads of memory and a full keyboard.
Anyone using
I don't want to use a tablet interface to develop for your stupid tablet interface using a tablet. I'm not going to do it.
I will encourage leadership, and that means people who would be glad to spend money for me, to not update at all.
But my voice apparently goes in the bucket of "user" rather than "people who further extend our monopoly".
Are you high?
We can't observe our galaxy from outside our galaxy. Not yet, at least.
We are far more knowledgeable about other galaxies than we are about our own. This is still true even if dark matter turns out to be bad assumptions.
Most of the Milky Way is hidden from direct observation, unless you want to man a telescope for half of the 200 million years needed to rotate around the bigass whatever the hell it is at the center of it all.
Does "size" mean mass or space? Because that's really what you need to be concerned about. But you didn't really address that. So go sit in a corner with your doob and think about it. You and the 4 idiots, I assume, who moderated you positively despite being higher than shit.
Conceptually, I understand that everything is on the internet. It's nice to actually see it from time to time. Especially when it's not porn.
Did you read the bill? Because you did not say that. Also, how do you have public science without having the data to analyze? Before you answer,
H.R. 1030,
â(b)(1) The Administrator shall not propose, finalize, 8
or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and 9
technical information relied on to support such covered ac- 10
tion isâ" 11
ââ(A) the best available science; 12
ââ(B) specifically identified; and 13
ââ(C) publicly available online in a manner that 14
is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial 15
reproduction of research results.
Technical information relied on being publicly available means the data has to be available for analysis. I don't know any other way to interpret it. There is the exclusion saying " Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as â(A) requiring the Administrator to disseminate scientific and technical information," but that just allows private individuals to host the information, such as researchers making it available themselves.
If it's not available, it would not follow this law, and thus would be illegal to base a decision on it.
Now, remember all of the discussions we have had about the difficulty in anonymising data sets? Because that's what people are objecting to regarding this part of the bill(s). Plenty of discussion on this site so I won't get into that.
I read the bill, and I cannot find support for your argument unless you base it on selective reading of the article.
Ignorant.
â(4) The Administrator shall carry out this sub-section in a manner that does not exceed $1,000,000 per fiscal year, to be derived from amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated.
It makes sense until you understand what will be required to implement this. Especially, put yourself in the mindset of being anti-science, and how you might take advantage of these requirements. At any point, you can object to an EPA policy by saying it does not comply with this law and try to suspend enforcement until the issue is settled.
I can't object to the principle, but the financial requirement is intended to shut down regulation. And you fell for it.
Who? Quants?
That is, Quantitative Analysts. And it's kind of their job to say whether we, as coders, improve things by refactoring.
Should we bill the client those hours, or suck them up as something we were initially paid to do? Lots of arguments here, but there is a study that claims to have an answer.
How can anyone say?
Obviously, stats. How? Depends on stats.
You shut your mouth, How can you say I go about things the wrong way? I am human and I need to be loved Just like everybody else does.
WTF does this have to do with the bible? There are SO MANY things wrong with this that you could attack, but you chose prior posts?
Go fuck yourself with a sideways with a rusty rake.
When you code, the most important thing to do is get your memory architecture built right, then methods just write themselves. Come back later and want to make a better method, you can use your old code as a partial refactor. It is an agile sort of run and gun approach and it works.
Refactoring for the sake of refactoring is often wasted time for the original author for there is ways of understanding code past just nice variable names and indentation. Sometimes even badly formatted code stands out and reminds you what it did to remind you of how it works. But when you code in a group, this doesn't hold true and a refactor can help.
For the record, if I hurt your feelings, it is probably because you have some factually incorrect dependency or premise which you need to eliminate.
In other words, you should be hurt, so that in later posts you do not make the same mistake.
Sociopaths and Misanthropes are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
The foundation of their illness, the description - basically - no, not basically. At every definition, these are completely different.
LEARN 2 WORD.
I won't beleaguer the point, but you need to be slapped on the ass with a dictionary.
There are too many sociopaths. The internet seems to be a perfect playground where ignorant people can pretend to be informed, and hurt other people in the process.
Do you watch Law and Order regularly? Or maybe you watched Star Chamber once?
"What about" nothing. Anything you leave behind at a crime scene is fair game. This is a valid point.
I passed by there on my way to buy flowers for some girl.
I farted while buying groceries.
Whether it is OK is not something I would leave to the average voter. National discussion involves 49% idiots.
The number one criticism of America's national security, in cases like Wade Page, Christopher Dorner, and the Boston Marathon, is "You're not doing enough."
How can we sell your solution to the, for the sake of brevity, sheeple?
Because the moment a bunch of people die, and your proposal seems to be somewhere around, you sound like a domestic terrorist. That's some scary shit, to me.
As an enlightened individual, I could not participate in this. People die, and answers must be found. Should someone have predicted the event? That's surveillance. We could go on about division of responsibility, but people will elect those willing to demand answers. And those elected will ask for answers.
Look, people are stupid. Like sheep in a number of ways. But you should consider the response from those with a loved one killed by some idiot.
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome Klapka Jerome