And a life of uncertainty is pretty much a constant for the poor anyhow, so fuck it, let's make everyone uncertain.
Also, I really need to hear jisim tsunami more often in my news reports.

@ChaosEngine

I'm not sure you understand what machine learning is. As I said, the trigger for your child.runsInFront() is based on numerical inputs from sensors that is fed into a formula with certain parameters and coefficients. This has been optimized from many hours of driving data but ultimately it's not able to predict novel events as it can only optimize off existing data. There is a base level of error from bias-variance tradeoff to this model that you cannot avoid. It's not simply a matter of logging enough hours of driving. If that base error level is not low enough, then autonomous cars may never be deemed reliable to be unsupervised.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias-variance_tradeoff
Or specifically: http://scott.fortmann-roe.com/docs/docs/BiasVariance/biasvariance.png

It's the same reason that a stock market simulator using the same method (but different inputs) is not accurate. The difference would be that while 55% correct for the stock market may be sufficiently accurate and useful to be profitable, a driving algorithm needs to be near perfect. It's true that a sensor reaction time to someone braking unexpectedly may be much better than a human's and prevent a crash, so yes in certain cases autonomous driving will be safer but because of exceptional cases, but it may never be truly hands-off and you may always need to be ready to intervene, just like how Tesla works today (and why on a regulatory level it passed muster).

The combination of Google hyping its project and poor understanding of math or machine learning is why news reports just parrot Google's reliability numbers. Tesla also, has managed to convince many people that it already offers autonomous driving, but the auto-steer / cruise and changing lanes tech has existed for around a decade. Volvo, Mercedes and Audi all have similar features. There is a tendency to treat this technology as magical or inevitable when there are some unavoidable limitations behind it that may never be surmounted.

There was an interview on ABC that I was watching at work, and the lady being interviewed made more or less the same points as this article from the Grauniad, Dilma Rousseff: Brazilian congress votes to impeach president http://gu.com/p/4tdg9/stw

She said that many of the minor parties spent a lot of time explaining their votes, and that many of them had nothing to do with either corruption or Rousseff... so many Brazilians think it's all politicised and partisan and little to do with any real wrongdoing.

It'll possibly show up here in a day or so - http://www.abc.net.au/transcripts/ (I think it was probably ABC News, Series 2016 | Episode 77). I kinda wish I'd paid more attention to the who/what/when/where/why/how.

The end of this BBC News report highlights something that Greenwald said, which is that the supporters of impeachment are rich and white, and those who oppose it are poor and likely to be mixed race (skip to 1:37):



p.s. This isn't the transcript I was talking about, but yesterday is missing from the list (?!?) It does have some details I haven't seen much elsewhere: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2016/s4445246.htm

@ChaosEngine
he does credit them!
Massive thanks to:
AListProductions: https://www.youtube.com/user/AListPro...
Saul Rosales: https://www.youtube.com/user/superman...
River A.C.E. for the amazing logo: https://www.youtube.com/user/rEdits92...
Shadow Rabbit for the amazing logo:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCURN...

**This video was made purely for fun.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. No copyright infringement intended.

and you guys...sheesh...i can't do stuff like this,and the 10yr old that resides in me still thinks this is awesome!

Why does the voice over state different facts than it displays @8:20?

Also, this video actually seems to downplay the violence perpetrated by Israel in the last couple decades, significantly, at least relative to the news reporting in the last couple decades.

No, he is excited. He is often excited when he speaks. Both annoying and endearing. Plus, IMO it's the content of the overall video that makes it taggable. For example, if this was some news reporter announcing Donald Trump happily winning the election, would you label it happy?

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by newtboy.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/News-reporter-signing-out

I've been reading these news reports closely.

I am afraid that the people resigning aren't "core" Mormons, with temple recommends. I am afraid they are people who have already drifted away from the church and now they are making a political statement that isn't going to make a difference to the church leadership.

One person was quoted, in another news report I read, that they hadn't gone to church in 17 years and they were resigning today.

Having said that -- I am 100% convinced that the Mormon Church will eventually allow gay people full membership. Because, even if few of these resigning are "core" members of the church, more and more gay kids are coming out of the closet. And as they become more visible, as they are more and more accepted as human beings "made in God's image", it will be harder and harder for parents' to choose their church over their children.

And there is a mechanism for change in the church -- hence full membership for blacks when it became impossible to continue the overt 1800's racism of the originators.

It's coming for the Mormons. When loads more people quit and take their 10% tithing with them... well, the Mormons are excellent business people. They aren't going to cut themselves off from their revenue stream.

I say it will be within 30 years. Maybe even sooner.

Ah. I wondered. I saw a "news" report about a type of person called a "super recognizer." They have the ability to recognize celebrities from old photos (and probably have other recognizing abilities, too.)

I'm not a super recognizer, but I am a pretty dang good recognizer. I can't see anyone BUT Jack Black in that screen shot.

I'm losing the ability now. Not that I don't know who the people are -- I just can't remember names now!

Interesting factoid -- as you age, you lose the ability to recall nouns. Verbs don't go away. Fascinating. Says something about the evolution of language ot me....

Everything with killings in it will get reviewed then @lucky760. There will be no exceptions then for shit based on cops, soldiers, etc., unless it is "lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary that encompasses a much broader narrative."

OH, AND IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE NEWS REPORTS OR DOCUMENTARY'S ARE THEMSELVES A BROAD NARRATIVE, THE FATALITY ITSELF MUST ALSO BE educational and all that crap.

And since no mention was made about insulting other sifters in snide ass manners, backhanded bullshit insults that sting far worse than dumb and crass insults, I assume it's now no hands barred? I would rather be called a dumb fuck than treated as I was...so you will be the one to make the ruling on that bud. Either we can all be insulting, snide assholes, or someone else gets told to be civil... I don't care whether he was "pissed off at me for posting it"...

The posting guidelines define it very clearly:

"The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited, incidental portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary that encompasses a much broader narrative. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera."

So you're admitting the police videos showing murder and senseless life taking--which almost all the police videos are hardly "educational, informative news report or documentary that," you're admitting they should be removed? Again, I am about fairness and if this is true, lets do it. Homeless man beaten to death? How is that more educational than this? It was left. And you didn't address the content of what I wrote about other videos, a plethora of others, that have been left? Address those "snuff" videos and either demand they come down or admit your idea of snuff isn't all that matters.

I believe I do know what I'm talking about, unlike some.

The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited, incidental portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary that encompasses a much broader narrative. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.

Many 'newsworthy' videos have been removed because they were far less graphic snuff than this, even though they also were newsworthy and informative (unlike this video). This was nothing more than a graphic murder in full view with a second violent killing alongside it, plain and simple, and there's no more egregious, clear, or more clearly forbidden type of snuff than a short clip of nothing more than blatant violent multiple murder in full view and color. It was not incidental to the video, it WAS the entirety of the video, and there was no narrative or educational portion at all.

@dag, a ruling please.