Mars is only a few billion dollars of investment away from being quite habitable, and Mr. Musk should make plans to retire there along with his friends and senior execs within the year.
Imagine what you would say if they actually did so: invest (more than) a few billions in making part of Mars habitable by, say, building one of those 50's SF domes or something outlandish like that. Move there with their billions locked up in the new colony. Make it work, prove it actually was feasible. Manage to stay alive long enough to make the colony largely self-sustaining. Never mind the how, never mind the likeliness of it happening, just be John Lennon for a second and Imagine.
Those fat cats took their billions to create their own colony on planet X while we're left here on a dying Earth
Why should those greedy capitalists get their own planet? They should open it up to refugees from Earth!
Mars wasn't built by Musk & Co., it was built by $(insert_favourite_group) and belongs to them
Etcetera. Same old story, same old song. Quite a tiring one at that. I'd say let them have a go at creating a Mars colony and if they succeed - which is rather unlikely - they get to decide what to do with their settlement.
Notably lacking in comparisons in speed, accuracy and costs vs KNN-hyperspace, Bayesian-updaters like SpamAssassin's SpamBayes, and traditional rules methods.
Yeah, I collect papers where run-of-the-mill people do run-of-the-mill classification problems and the standard of quality is not what I wish it was. This paper avoids the common antipattern of wasting effort on Word2Vec and five other things that never work.
They are using Enron which is a very strange email spool to work with because it's almost entirely spam free. The problem in Enron is to find a tiny amount of criminal activity in a vast volume of innocent communications whereas the problem in a normal email spool today is to find a tiny amount of meaningful email in a great flood of spam and attempted criminal activity.
> What the President believes is not, has not been, and cannot be the basis of law.
Yes, but...
> If it were, the President would be a king.
First, rape is an immoral act that the law does and should punish. It is a factually bad thing, regardless of whether a legal system recognizes it as such.
Second, pace the legal positivists, the law is a determination of the moral law within particular circumstances. It is not arbitrary without becoming false. As the old legal maxim goes, lex iniusta non est lex: an unjust law is not a law. This means justice is presupposed by the positive law; the latter exists in the service of the former.
Third, kings are not God. They are not the basis for the law in the sense that they can simply legislate anything they want. One reason I've already given: a valid law can only be a determination of the natural law; declaring dogs to have five legs is meaningless.
Another reason is that kings were bound by tradition, custom, and various feudal contracts. In Europe, the Church also kept kings in check. In countries like Poland, the king increasingly became more "presidential" in the sense that the sovereign could not enact any laws without the consent of the nobility (per the Nihil Novi Act [0]).
Next to me: the windowsill cat tray. Cat likelihood while working | sunny day: 65%. Cat likelihood while working | overcast or evening: 40%
Cardboard banker's box lid on my desk, with an old t-shirt in it. Cat likelihood while working: 70%
It's true that there are four cats in this house, and cat politics is weird, so these results may not hold for any other circumstances.
reply