Google glass is at least visible, many people in the future will simply put the camera in a piece of jewelry or a pen just because it looks less geeky.
Especially if the business in question caters to hipsters and half the customers are wearing those godawful chunky plastic BCGs. You can hide a lot of recording and processing power in those things these days
Unfortunately, the corporate world has become very much like the political arena.
Honesty is no longer treasured.
"Has become"? "No longer"? Look, whistleblowers have always been treated badly. Governmental, corporate, academic--no matter what kind of organization you're in, the organization will react badly to anything it sees as a threat. And the problem gets worse the larger the organizations are. In small groups, human beings act like human beings, but in large groups, they act more like the cells of some vast organism. Imagine how you'd react if some of your muscle cells suddenly started refusing to contract when you told them to, even if by that refusal they were preventing you from doing something you really shouldn't do.
So, welcome to the real world then
where uncertainty rules.
be glad you get 3 years in between.
I've worked in government, industry, and now academia each for about a third of my adult life. Believe me when I say that the uncertainty in academia is much, much greater than in the others. There are rewards, obviously, or people wouldn't do it at all, but security is not one of them. By comparison, the other sectors are much safer.
Of course, if you're one of those people who thinks "academics don't know anything about the real world," this probably won't get through to you.
Hey there, Internet Tough Guy. It's been a while. How ya been?
Stepping in to save a stranger's life is pretty much the opposite of predation. If you're using this as an example of psychopathy, you're defining the word so broadly as to have no meaning.
It's not a disease, it's simply the trait of a predator. It means that he can manipulate people more easily, which is a useful skill. Rejecting it because it's badly seen by society is a mistake.
When people in a society prey on other people in that society, we usually identify their behavior a a disease, and rightly so.
Okay, tell you what: bury half a human skeleton in your yard, call the cops, and tell them you've found some interesting bones but you're not sure what they are. Be sure to let us know what happens next.
It is idiotic to claim that there is no difference between free markets and socialism
It would indeed be idiotic, if anyone were making that claim. Who's making it?
"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
This is called "Lewontin's fallacy" and has been debunked far and wide.
Calling something a fallacy does not make it fallacious, nor does claiming it has been debunked constitute a debunking. I recommend you follow the links from the Hsu article and learn some more about what is still a very active debate.
So we have a world where many biologists are in denial and just stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALALAAA I cannot hear you LALALALAAA" when people start wondering about the potential for viable hybrids to occur in nature.
Um, biologists have been aware of the fuzziness of species boundaries for a very long time. It's non-biologists who remember the archaic "mate and produce fertile offspring" definition of "species" from high school science class who make comments like OP's.
I forget the name, but a book exists ( yes it's classified ) that outlines all of the current warships that sail the Earth. Their known defenses, and how many / what type of offensive firepower it will take to guarantee a kill.
The book you're probably thinking of is Jane's Fighting Ships, which isn't classified at all--you can buy it on Amazon. Which is something that's been giving counterintelligence people fits for well over a century. The Jane's group is one of the world's largest and most effective spy agencies, and they sell everything they know.
Blockbuster fell into the same myopic hole as Sears did in the 90s. At the start of the Internet boom, Sears had everything in place to be what Amazon is - they already had a full catalog service that delivered by mail and also had in-store pickup. A simple "order from" website would have been all that was needed as the rest of the infrastructure was already in place. Instead, Amazon owned that space and Sears is struggling to remain relevant.
The CLT is one of the most elegant and powerful results in all of mathematics, and can be used, quite appropriately, to justify normal models for all sorts of measurements. That being said, its usefulness has led to the dumbed-down idea of "the bell curve" being the appropriate model for all sorts of things where it's clearly not--I don't know how many times I've seen a normal curve superimposed on a histogram or kernel density estimation of data that are clearly non-normal. As another poster pointed out, there are simple and well-understood tests for normality, and failure to apply them when constructing a normal model is just ridiculous.
The problem with frequentist statistics as used in the article is that its "recipe" character often results in people using statistics that do not understand its limitations (a good example is assuming a normal distribution when there is none). The bayesian approach does not suffer from this problem, also because it forces you to think a little bit more about the problem you are trying to solve compared to the frequentist approach.
If only. The number of people who think "sprinkle a little Bayes on it" is the solution to everything is frighteningly large, and growing exponentially AFAICT. There's now a Bayesian recipe counterpart to just about every non-Bayesian recipe, and the only difference between them, as a practical matter, is that the people using the former think they're doing something special and better. One might say that their prior is on the order of P(correct|Bayes) = 1, which makes it very hard to convince them otherwise
Neutrinos have bad breadth.
