See, you're thinking they need to perfect the technology for it to be useful, because imperfect technology is a pain in the ass for users of voice commands. But they don't. It's a different use case. Any amount of successful Speech-to-Text processing for archiving and searching is more effective than zero. They obviously would want to raise this as high as possible to avoid missing information, but they don't need perfection either. Even a 50% rate of transcription would yield a staggering amount of data, and if any specific triggers are hit, then a communication could be flagged for follow up by a human.
Why do you need a source for something that happens constantly.
Because everyone knows you're selling a myth that it "happens constantly." That's why you can't point to a list of examples of it happening "constantly" and instead go right for the race card in order to distract.
Every one of the links in this thread points to an easy-to-read article referencing a mainstream prediction
If this were true, you would've had no problem enumerating the pairs in the form I asked for. That you didn't do so suggests, it is not there. That you later try to switch the topic confirms the suspicion.
you will enjoy my challenge to you
Sorry, I don't feel like it. But I don't have to prove anything to you — I am not asking (much less demanding) you change your way of life to suit my views.
If there is substantial evidence that people are causing climate change and that climate change could cause significant harm
Begs the question, does not it? A giant "if"...
The only sound argument for inaction would be compelling evidence that harm will not occur
I see. So, unable to prove your contention, you are demanding, the opponents prove the opposite. Nope, not going to work. The burden of proof is on you. Put up or shut up.
A better idea is an RFID reader and an implanted RFID chip. Separate user from computer and shutdown, or better yet, lock and start shutdown timer unless unlocked. A pain in the ass when you want a sammich, or you want to keep downloading files when you're AFK, but security has always required a sacrifice of convenience. Use a separate computer for "everyday" tasks, and one for sensitive tasks.
While this article is targeted at legal seizures, there are everyday uses as well, like preventing theft of your device on the subway from translating into theft of your data, or preventing corporate espionage. Of course it's an arms race, so if deadman's switches ever became common, then thieves will be sure to remove your implant (ouch) or just bring you along. The next step would be implanted computers, and removing or retrieving information from those will raise all sorts of constitutional issues.
Looks interesting. However, I wonder how I might be able to use this, since I can barely write with a pen anymore. I much prefer Swype these days, and can swipe whole words very quickly.
When pretty much every other language out there, including C and C++, can do string handling better than Rust can, the problem isn't with the fact that competition is happening. The problem is solely that Rust's string handling is total shit.
You're kidding, right? I've never used Rust, so I can't testify to its string handling, but I'm very familiar with C and C++ and using strings in both, and they both completely suck. C is absolutely horrible, and C++ is terrible too if you use the standard library. You only get good string-handling in C++ by switching to a library like Qt.
As for what it's competing against, that's just ridiculous. No language is competing against every language out there; every language has its strengths and weaknesses. C is really good at low-level programming that's one step above assembly, but it sucks at a lot of things (including string handling). Perl is excellent at string parsing, but sucks at performance and readability. R is really good at math, but completely unusable for writing an OS. I'm sure Rust fits in there too somehow. The point is, you can't just compare Rust, or any language, against any other arbitrary language and then bash it because it fails. Is C unusable because it sucks at text parsing? If text parsing is what you need, then yes, but if you're writing an OS kernel, then no.
As much as I appreciate and generally agree with your point, I'd remind you of something Bjorn Lomborg - no stranger to controversy - pointed out: if you want to talk about a disease, you talk to a doctor, no question. If you want to talk about climate, you talk to a climatologist, again, no question.
But if you're making a value judgement - deciding which of those things is more important, or which you need to spend limited dollars fixing - NEITHER the doctor nor the climatologist is appropriate. That is rightly the realm of politics, insofar as politicians are the avenue by which the public's will is exercised.
Supernova observations can't be reproduced.
Nor can a particular rat be brought back to life to have an experiment reproduced on the same animal. But whatever conclusions you make from observing one supernova (or rat), better be supported by observing another.
Did you really something so obvious spelled-out for you, Mr. Scientist?
You care more about form than function.
If you had content, you would've had no problem shaping it into the requested form.
But, instead, so many posts — some of them outright whining — instead of simply offering the list requested... I think, I understand, why you are still sore with some of thems teachers of yours...
I don't get your meaning here. "Venial" means "pardonable".
Please explain how civil strife in nation-states like Syria where there is little American much like the Secretary of State's influence are Hillary Clinton's fault.
Please explain how you can be so fucking obtuse as to wave away the example of Libya (which she enthusiastically supported) and her vote in favor of the Iraq War AUMF.
On second thought, don't bother. You have nothing interesting to say and are conveniently ignoring the points that don't line up with your world view.
Not true, C# has been off of Windows for a long time by way of Mono.
The conventional wisdom here has been that Mono is always a few steps behind MS's implementation of C#, so it's not fully compatible.
I don't know if that still holds true, but it used to be the general understanding.
It's only outdated if you don't want a dedicated device for time. Some of us do want or need such a device, preferably one that doesn't need to be recharged every 24 hours, do a bunch of shit we don't care about, and occupy half of our lower arms. A nice looking watch is also a fashion statement; I'm not talking Rolex level (although you can certainly do that), just something that looks halfway decent and goes with most of your wardrobe.
There's still a market for dedicated devices. What does a smartwatch give me? Don't need it for fitness, it will never compete with a decent runner's watch for durability and ease of use. Don't want it for time, my real watch is less cumbersome and has a battery life measured in years. Can't do anything productive (e-mails, shopping lists, etc.) with it that I can't do better with my smartphone. Directions? That might be an argument, but again, how is the watch better than my phone? I've gotten around foreign cities where I don't speak the local language using my phone and Google Maps. Where's the game changer in doing the same with my watch?
I never thought that C++'s standard library was very good, but it's a pleasure to work with compared to Rust's.
Rust's string handling is a particularly bad disaster, and this permeates throughout the entire standard library.
Rust's standard library is pretty pathetic compared to C#'s, or Python's
I just don't see why Rust is getting as much hype as it currently is getting.
I'm not a Rust expert, but I think you're trying to use a hammer to turn a screw here. As I understand it, Rust was never meant to compete with C# or Python; it's supposed to be a system-level language, which means it competes with C and C++. Both of those have pretty lame standard libraries and absolutely horrible string handling. If you want to do real string handling in C++, for instance, you'd be an idiot to use the standard library, and really should use a different library. My personal preference is Qt; string handling in Qt is wonderful and easy, and extremely readable unlike some other C++ libraries I've seen.
From what I read on Rust's wikipedia entry, it appears to be intended to serve much like C or C++, but with memory safety. Null pointers aren't allowed.