If the differences are a level of shock, and history of exposure to similar stimuli is a predictor of level of shock, then perhaps political leanings correlate with what stimuli people choose to expose themselves to throughout their lives. For instance, liberals watching guts in medical dramas and conservatives watching love stories in family dramas.
150-160 HTML, 120 canvas, 200-ish SVG.
1920x1080, Pentium G3420 $70 CPU, Ubuntu 14.04, Chrome. I am surprised how much better my numbers are.
Start with a machine designed for survival - situational awareness, means of defense, mobility. Now add in your 'preferences' - don't injure humans, be nice, don't lie. Mass produce a few million of these and distribute into the population. Along comes a reason the manufacturer or government finds to deactivate them all, mix in a little human attachment and hacker mentality.. Survival of the fittest. If these things are smart enough to build/engineer themselves..
Personally, I'm not a big fan of talking to machines. Yeah, it looks awesome in sci-fi
The experiment used caffeine during memorization. Does caffeine have any relative effect on recollection?
Using your data, assuming the key block is 512 bytes out of say 8GB RAM, the odds of the key block being corrupted is 1 in 16.78 million. Even if you have 16 bit errors a year, there's a 1 in a million chance of that happening in a year. Now compare that to other risk scenarios, and how much you invest in protecting against those.
BTRFS needs to become the Linux default FS.
I just lost my wife's BTRFS partition yesterday after a hard-reset. Consulted Google for btrfs repair options and discovered they are lacking. Kept reporting root->node assertion failed, whatever that's supposed to mean. I don't recall the last time I've lost a partition like this, I assumed fsck would have done the trick.
Note that while this tool should be able to repair broken filesystems, it is still relatively new code, and has not seen widespread testing on a large range of real-life breakage. It is possible that it may cause additional damage in the process of repair.
Reading your response, I realized the formulation of the question forces the student to deal with not only icons or only numbers, but rather they have to deal with both. That is, they see five pennies, and see one cup. But, they need to reason the 1 cup can hold 6 pennies, then perform the calculation. It seems the strange part of the problem - that it mixes icons and numbers - might precisely be why it was formulated as such.
There are even more abstractions that need to be dealt with than that - they have to associate the cup that can hold 6 pennies is what is considered to be 'whole', and they need to recognize the 'missing' part will exclude 'part I know'. Whether this is a sound approach or not, I don't know - but I can understand, it being so different from traditional mathematics, it would ruffle some feathers.
Money is a requirement for effective speech.
No it's not. That's like saying a pistol is a requirement for effective self defense, and prisoners have a right to self defense, so let the prisoners have guns. No.
We set a moral standard, we draw a legal line, and people do the best they can within the confines of the law. Money is not a requirement for effective speech. So ask yourself, morally, should we limit spending on political speech?
If we're going to play that game, then don't forget backup generation for the coal/gas plants. The electrical grid has its uses. Also, apparently that table doesn't include fuel costs, strangely enough.
Facts are facts. Solar is clean, diverse, expensive and unreliable.
Expensive? Get your facts straight.
Check out Table 1 from this report we paid for. Assuming the guys we paid to assemble the report did their jobs well, it shows capital costs and operational costs on-par or better than most forms of energy except natural gas.
A given outcome is such because of the mechanisms that exhibit the noted outcome state. A prediction of that outcome entails a prediction of the behavior of those mechanisms prior to their actuation.
A behavior's complexity can be increased, such that the defining mechanism complexity increases, and prediction entails more complex operations to reach the prediction.
I am unaware of a reason the complexity can't reach a level where the physical mechanism producing the outcome is the most simplified definition of the mechanisms producing the outcome. Thus, the process must be actuated to determine the outcome. Is this free will? I don't know.
Some people actually provide documentation with their code? Your point highlights the importance of quality documentation that allows an outsider to quickly understand a code base. Something quite useful in the open source world.
This study indicates Vitamin C may lower cancer risk from NDMA. NDMA can be found at dangerous levels in chlorinated water - essentially anyone with 'city water.' And there's currently no EPA regulation on NDMA content of drinking water.
I found the study referenced in this broad examine article on Vitamin C.
So, there's credence to the notion of Vitamin C for cancer prevention. One can argue prevention is better than chemo or radiation.
Does the NSF have budget constraints? Do they have to determine which proposals get funded and which don't, or do they fund as much as they want? How do they prioritize their selections? Should those defining the budget have any input on the priorities? These seem pertinent questions that I see neither discussed nor addressed.