They'll always be a demand for real humans to abuse and humiliate, so servants and prostitutes will see some demand for their services, but they'll be cheap. There's also the status stuff, the best restaurants having human staff kind of thing.
That's how science works. Someone writes a paper, someone else reads it and points out problems such as here where 2 questions weren't clear, paper gets adjusted, repeat. Not much different then software development where you write code, someone else reviews it and you fix (or argue that you're correct) any problems the reviewer found. Not everyone is perfect and mistakes aren't fake news.
Not an expert on the civil war besides my country being created in the aftermath due to worries about that Union Army wanting to continue war, but generally it is presented as the Union Army fighting the Confederate Army, not a bunch of militias facing off and even starting with the Confederate army shelling an Union Army base. I'm sure militias were involved, especially at the beginning but it could have been done like at Athens, using arms stored in an armory for the use of the militia. The underground army is usually presented as the use of stealth rather then arms to sneak those slaves out of the country, at that the way the laws were at the time, it was illegal to help deprive a man of his possessions and I've never heard any stories about the militia taking on the government to protect those escaping slaves, just arguments whether a State would allow slavery in which both sides considered that they were fighting tyranny. Not too many cases of the blacks successfully defending themselves with arms against the KKK, which often included parts of the government, or as you say, the conservatives. The Battle of Athens didn't have anything to do with the 2nd. A bunch of veterans broke into an armory, took the governments arms and used them. A good example of how the people can defend against tyranny without the 2nd amendment being needed. The last few standoffs have ended up in court, not with the American army retreating or joining the rebels cause. At that, I don't believe the army was even involved though I'd guess the government had troops picked out from far enough away to be loyal, if needed.
You still didn't list any times the 2nd made a difference. Not in the whiskey rebellion, not when the south tried to secede, not when the blacks were routinely getting lynched. Meanwhile there are countries without the 2nd that have defended themselves from tyranny with militias and armed people (no reason the people can't be armed without a 2nd amendment, just means you can stop mentally unbalanced people or former crooks from owning arms, unlike America where everyone can be armed and due to the 2nd, there is nothing the government can do, shit can't even stop people from walking into Congress armed due to the Constitution). Think of Switzerland as an example of the militia being done right and a long history of not being tyrannized.
Well having real live servants will be a status symbol. The rich can come home to their army of very obedient servants, get their footwear licked clean and such and abuse their servants in other ways secure in the knowledge that there are 10+ potential servants lined up at the door willing to take that $10 a day job for each you have employed.. They'll be other ways having humans in the chain will be a status symbol in a world of robots. The best restaurants will have human servers and chefs if you're willing to pay the premium, and some of that premium might even trickle down to the employees. They'll be status in having a human to clean your self driving cars sensors and once again due to the surplus of labour, it'll be cheap. Prostitution is always popular when cheap enough. Abusing a robot just isn't as satisfying as abusing a real human. I'm sure there are lots of other ways to employ people in demeaning ways for next to no pay and have huge lineups of potential employees. Great for the owners of the robots, who will have more money then they know what to do with.
The same way it is done in America, voting, protesting and such. So far, in 230+ years, those guns have mostly been used for tyranny. Right off they were used to take land from the natives, a form of tyranny. They never helped those slaves that were being tyrannized either, eventually it was 2 standing armies facing off that ended slavery, an extreme form of tyranny. Currently America has millions of people in prison, often for tyrannical reasons such as possessing a plant. Cops seem to shoot people every day and many arms holders praise them rather then taking up arms against the members of the government tyrannizing the people. As a defense against tyranny, having an armed population doesn't seemed to have worked any better then most unarmed western countries and worked like shit in places like Afghanistan where the population is armed.
Kids used to grow up faster. When you start going to work full time at 5 years old, by 12 generally you're more mature then modern teenagers. Childhood is actually a pretty recent invention, especially amongst the working class.
Besides gnick's answer, the earlier you get them hooked to your brand, the better. Think of computers and kids. Learn Windows as a kid and likely a Windows user for life, likewise for Apple. Kids are also naive in the way advertising works and easy to sucker in.
Interesting speeds you get. I'm in rural BC, lots of trees and rain. The other month (Nov) the phone company lit up their new cell tower and pushing their 4G home internet which I signed up for as dial up now a days is insanely slow. The best speeds I've seen have been about 15/1 (usually more like 12/1.5 and now in the evenings, it is more like 1/3 and even watching a crappy youtube video results in lots of time outs. It seems that it is just as easy to oversell 4G as any other type of connection and while it does solve the final mile cheaply, it sure has its limits. Being Canada, it sure isn't cheap either.
Here in BC, they charge something like $50 (might now be $75) for that 85 year old to get to the hospital for non-rationed open heart surgery and dialysis. Sister just had to have open heart surgery, had to wait 4 hours for it as she arrived in the middle of the night. I'd guess that even in the States, there are limited numbers of surgeons available forcing rationing at times, eg 6 people show up at the hospital needing open heart surgery and dialysis and there is only 3 surgeons and 3 dialysis machines, there is going to be rationing, usually described as triaging. What is rationed are things like a new knee for that 85 year old, who might not get till they're 86.
That's why you charge a small fee. Here in BC, it was $50 when I needed one some years back, might be $75 now. Enough to stop frivolous use without bankrupting people. I don't know what it would cost for someone without coverage but an ER visit is only about $500 for a foreigner. Funny enough, just got a call from a friend who needs a ride to ER.
Here in BC, it's $50, enough to stop frivolous use while being reasonable. Took a friend to emergency the other month and noticed the price list for an emergency visit if not covered by the government. About $300 for a citizen/resident of Canada, $500 for a foreigner.
I'm in Canada, on fixed wireless with a hub with a couple of antennas, dual channel (2.4 and 5Ghz) and the best I get is 15Mbs down and now that all my neighbours (perhaps 100-200) seem to have the same setup, it is currently 5.5Mbs down and 1 up, last evening it was 1 down and 3 up. Not very impressive, though it saves the ISP money in just building a cell tower with some government funding instead of bringing the fiber all the way out.
That's assuming there is a safe place to pull over. Around here, when it snows, we're lucky if 2 lanes are plowed and the shoulders always have a few feet of snow piled up on them. I've driven quite a few miles just looking for a spot to pull over and let the idiot tailgating me, who thinks having a 4x4 means being able to stop on a dime and corner like a sports car on shear ice, pass me so I can laugh when I see him in the ditch down the road, usually do as well.
Experience showed that having a standing army led to tyranny. Note the Constitution limits funding an army for 2 years while a navy could be funded for however long Congress chose.
He was a socialist, went to Spain to fight the fascists, then saw the Stalinists fuck up the socialism (and try to kill him). What he was was anti-authoritarian. Turns out that you can have authoritarians on either side of the political spectrum with the authoritarians getting into power in poor countries (or at least countries with a lot of poor) through promising wealth redistribution while in richer countries, fascism works well.
What he hated was Stalin-ism. He fought in the Spanish civil war against the fascists, the socialist area he was in was doing great, and then the Stalinists showed up, things went down hill and before he knew it, he was having to sneak out of Spain and hide out in the UK. Authoritarians are horrible no matter which political wing they use to get into power,usually communism in poor countries and fascism in richer countries but really all the authoritarian is interested in is power.
it seems out of place for the NRA to be in the place of awarding a gun based on that, as it doesn't really align with any of NRA's agenda
The NRA's agenda seems to be having a pro-gun government. Getting rid of net neutrality allows things like putting anti-gun groups or politicians in the slow lane or just routing them to/dev/nul along with being able to take voter suppression to a new high by making sure certain neighbourhoods can't access the voting registration site.
You're looking at history with a telephoto lens where things look closer together then reality. The reality was that the industrial revolution put a lot of people out of work and it took 70 years, or 3 generations for work to come back. Sure there were jobs in the service industry, the rich had servants galore but it was shitty work for the servants. Sure a person could get a couple of hours of piece work shoveling coal or manure, but it wasn't steady and paid so little that the whole family had to hustle all day just to eat. Sure if you were a pretty young thing, you could get paid for lifting your skirts, until you get sick from VD or became old at 20 odd years but life was crap for most people. For 3 generations there was chronic underemployment before the economy produced full employment. The automation that happened around the turn of the last century was handled better. The workers were more organized, the employers became aware that productivity actually went up by not overworking their employees (something that seems to have been forgotten). Laws were passed to reduce the workforce , eg no more child labour and shorter work week. Minimum wage laws, the strength of unions and the fear of socialist revolution saw wages increase instead of all the profits going to the top, which led to a smaller workforce as well as the whole family didn't have to struggle just to eat. We also saw massive wars, which meant lots of breaking things and rebuilding, which created lots of work, but how useful is it breaking stuff and fixing it? Even now the wars, including cold war, continue, driving lots of economies. What would America be like with a realistic amount of spending on defence instead of offence? All the people that join the army due to no other good choices, all the people that work building arms, suddenly needing other employment.
Perhaps you need more FBI agents. Perhaps a 1:1 ratio of agents vs citizens will allow vetting of everyone. Can always expand the definition of mentally ill to voted for the wrong party and create some camps to keep them in while about it. Perhaps call them gulags and locate them in Alaska. It would be worth it to preserve the freedoms of Americans and its not like you can't borrow more money to pay for it.
Interesting, thanks. I am surprised they are talking about so little aerosols. And they would have to be maintained or increased as industry cleans up.
Oh, it's possible and worth considering. The problem is that climate science deals a lot with chaotic systems. Sorta like hydrology (or whatever you call studying river flows or ocean currents). You can dump rubber ducks in a river and have a high confidence that most will end up downstream, but it is hard or maybe impossible to predict the route of an individual duck or whether it'll even arrive. Ocean currents are even harder, look at the friendly floatees, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... climate science is similar, easy to say it is going to get warmer, hard to say exactly how warm and where and what affect more sulphates will have. Have to consider unintended consequences as well, probably just an increase in acid rain but I'm reminded of the idiots that think that dumping iron in the ocean will help without considering that fertilizing the algae leads to excessive growth and oxygen usage, resulting in die outs due to lack of oxygen, massive amounts of rotting algae using up more oxygen and finally a dead zone in the ocean. As I said, worth considering and perhaps using but ideally not depending on by itself. Probably the more diverse solutions, the better.
Fun getting that right as large releases of sulphate aerosols have often resulted in a few years of famine due to the global cooling. One example I came across the other day, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Slashdot Mirror
They'll always be a demand for real humans to abuse and humiliate, so servants and prostitutes will see some demand for their services, but they'll be cheap. There's also the status stuff, the best restaurants having human staff kind of thing.
That's how science works. Someone writes a paper, someone else reads it and points out problems such as here where 2 questions weren't clear, paper gets adjusted, repeat. Not much different then software development where you write code, someone else reviews it and you fix (or argue that you're correct) any problems the reviewer found.
Not everyone is perfect and mistakes aren't fake news.
Not an expert on the civil war besides my country being created in the aftermath due to worries about that Union Army wanting to continue war, but generally it is presented as the Union Army fighting the Confederate Army, not a bunch of militias facing off and even starting with the Confederate army shelling an Union Army base. I'm sure militias were involved, especially at the beginning but it could have been done like at Athens, using arms stored in an armory for the use of the militia.
The underground army is usually presented as the use of stealth rather then arms to sneak those slaves out of the country, at that the way the laws were at the time, it was illegal to help deprive a man of his possessions and I've never heard any stories about the militia taking on the government to protect those escaping slaves, just arguments whether a State would allow slavery in which both sides considered that they were fighting tyranny.
Not too many cases of the blacks successfully defending themselves with arms against the KKK, which often included parts of the government, or as you say, the conservatives.
The Battle of Athens didn't have anything to do with the 2nd. A bunch of veterans broke into an armory, took the governments arms and used them. A good example of how the people can defend against tyranny without the 2nd amendment being needed.
The last few standoffs have ended up in court, not with the American army retreating or joining the rebels cause. At that, I don't believe the army was even involved though I'd guess the government had troops picked out from far enough away to be loyal, if needed.
You still didn't list any times the 2nd made a difference. Not in the whiskey rebellion, not when the south tried to secede, not when the blacks were routinely getting lynched.
Meanwhile there are countries without the 2nd that have defended themselves from tyranny with militias and armed people (no reason the people can't be armed without a 2nd amendment, just means you can stop mentally unbalanced people or former crooks from owning arms, unlike America where everyone can be armed and due to the 2nd, there is nothing the government can do, shit can't even stop people from walking into Congress armed due to the Constitution). Think of Switzerland as an example of the militia being done right and a long history of not being tyrannized.
Well having real live servants will be a status symbol. The rich can come home to their army of very obedient servants, get their footwear licked clean and such and abuse their servants in other ways secure in the knowledge that there are 10+ potential servants lined up at the door willing to take that $10 a day job for each you have employed..
They'll be other ways having humans in the chain will be a status symbol in a world of robots. The best restaurants will have human servers and chefs if you're willing to pay the premium, and some of that premium might even trickle down to the employees.
They'll be status in having a human to clean your self driving cars sensors and once again due to the surplus of labour, it'll be cheap.
Prostitution is always popular when cheap enough. Abusing a robot just isn't as satisfying as abusing a real human.
I'm sure there are lots of other ways to employ people in demeaning ways for next to no pay and have huge lineups of potential employees. Great for the owners of the robots, who will have more money then they know what to do with.
The same way it is done in America, voting, protesting and such. So far, in 230+ years, those guns have mostly been used for tyranny. Right off they were used to take land from the natives, a form of tyranny. They never helped those slaves that were being tyrannized either, eventually it was 2 standing armies facing off that ended slavery, an extreme form of tyranny. Currently America has millions of people in prison, often for tyrannical reasons such as possessing a plant. Cops seem to shoot people every day and many arms holders praise them rather then taking up arms against the members of the government tyrannizing the people.
As a defense against tyranny, having an armed population doesn't seemed to have worked any better then most unarmed western countries and worked like shit in places like Afghanistan where the population is armed.
Kids used to grow up faster. When you start going to work full time at 5 years old, by 12 generally you're more mature then modern teenagers.
Childhood is actually a pretty recent invention, especially amongst the working class.
Besides gnick's answer, the earlier you get them hooked to your brand, the better. Think of computers and kids. Learn Windows as a kid and likely a Windows user for life, likewise for Apple.
Kids are also naive in the way advertising works and easy to sucker in.
Interesting speeds you get. I'm in rural BC, lots of trees and rain. The other month (Nov) the phone company lit up their new cell tower and pushing their 4G home internet which I signed up for as dial up now a days is insanely slow. The best speeds I've seen have been about 15/1 (usually more like 12/1.5 and now in the evenings, it is more like 1/3 and even watching a crappy youtube video results in lots of time outs. It seems that it is just as easy to oversell 4G as any other type of connection and while it does solve the final mile cheaply, it sure has its limits. Being Canada, it sure isn't cheap either.
Yea, it probably varies and my experience (car accident) was a while back.
Here in BC, they charge something like $50 (might now be $75) for that 85 year old to get to the hospital for non-rationed open heart surgery and dialysis. Sister just had to have open heart surgery, had to wait 4 hours for it as she arrived in the middle of the night. I'd guess that even in the States, there are limited numbers of surgeons available forcing rationing at times, eg 6 people show up at the hospital needing open heart surgery and dialysis and there is only 3 surgeons and 3 dialysis machines, there is going to be rationing, usually described as triaging.
What is rationed are things like a new knee for that 85 year old, who might not get till they're 86.
That's why you charge a small fee. Here in BC, it was $50 when I needed one some years back, might be $75 now. Enough to stop frivolous use without bankrupting people. I don't know what it would cost for someone without coverage but an ER visit is only about $500 for a foreigner.
Funny enough, just got a call from a friend who needs a ride to ER.
Here in BC, it's $50, enough to stop frivolous use while being reasonable.
Took a friend to emergency the other month and noticed the price list for an emergency visit if not covered by the government. About $300 for a citizen/resident of Canada, $500 for a foreigner.
Yea, lots of roads like that around here as well.
I'm in Canada, on fixed wireless with a hub with a couple of antennas, dual channel (2.4 and 5Ghz) and the best I get is 15Mbs down and now that all my neighbours (perhaps 100-200) seem to have the same setup, it is currently 5.5Mbs down and 1 up, last evening it was 1 down and 3 up. Not very impressive, though it saves the ISP money in just building a cell tower with some government funding instead of bringing the fiber all the way out.
Do they really use driverless cars in Norway? Or do they switch over to manual driving or perhaps use transit?
That's assuming there is a safe place to pull over. Around here, when it snows, we're lucky if 2 lanes are plowed and the shoulders always have a few feet of snow piled up on them. I've driven quite a few miles just looking for a spot to pull over and let the idiot tailgating me, who thinks having a 4x4 means being able to stop on a dime and corner like a sports car on shear ice, pass me so I can laugh when I see him in the ditch down the road, usually do as well.
Experience showed that having a standing army led to tyranny. Note the Constitution limits funding an army for 2 years while a navy could be funded for however long Congress chose.
He was a socialist, went to Spain to fight the fascists, then saw the Stalinists fuck up the socialism (and try to kill him). What he was was anti-authoritarian. Turns out that you can have authoritarians on either side of the political spectrum with the authoritarians getting into power in poor countries (or at least countries with a lot of poor) through promising wealth redistribution while in richer countries, fascism works well.
What he hated was Stalin-ism. He fought in the Spanish civil war against the fascists, the socialist area he was in was doing great, and then the Stalinists showed up, things went down hill and before he knew it, he was having to sneak out of Spain and hide out in the UK.
Authoritarians are horrible no matter which political wing they use to get into power,usually communism in poor countries and fascism in richer countries but really all the authoritarian is interested in is power.
it seems out of place for the NRA to be in the place of awarding a gun based on that, as it doesn't really align with any of NRA's agenda
The NRA's agenda seems to be having a pro-gun government. Getting rid of net neutrality allows things like putting anti-gun groups or politicians in the slow lane or just routing them to /dev/nul along with being able to take voter suppression to a new high by making sure certain neighbourhoods can't access the voting registration site.
You're looking at history with a telephoto lens where things look closer together then reality. The reality was that the industrial revolution put a lot of people out of work and it took 70 years, or 3 generations for work to come back. Sure there were jobs in the service industry, the rich had servants galore but it was shitty work for the servants. Sure a person could get a couple of hours of piece work shoveling coal or manure, but it wasn't steady and paid so little that the whole family had to hustle all day just to eat. Sure if you were a pretty young thing, you could get paid for lifting your skirts, until you get sick from VD or became old at 20 odd years but life was crap for most people. For 3 generations there was chronic underemployment before the economy produced full employment.
The automation that happened around the turn of the last century was handled better. The workers were more organized, the employers became aware that productivity actually went up by not overworking their employees (something that seems to have been forgotten). Laws were passed to reduce the workforce , eg no more child labour and shorter work week. Minimum wage laws, the strength of unions and the fear of socialist revolution saw wages increase instead of all the profits going to the top, which led to a smaller workforce as well as the whole family didn't have to struggle just to eat.
We also saw massive wars, which meant lots of breaking things and rebuilding, which created lots of work, but how useful is it breaking stuff and fixing it? Even now the wars, including cold war, continue, driving lots of economies. What would America be like with a realistic amount of spending on defence instead of offence? All the people that join the army due to no other good choices, all the people that work building arms, suddenly needing other employment.
Perhaps you need more FBI agents. Perhaps a 1:1 ratio of agents vs citizens will allow vetting of everyone. Can always expand the definition of mentally ill to voted for the wrong party and create some camps to keep them in while about it. Perhaps call them gulags and locate them in Alaska.
It would be worth it to preserve the freedoms of Americans and its not like you can't borrow more money to pay for it.
Interesting, thanks. I am surprised they are talking about so little aerosols. And they would have to be maintained or increased as industry cleans up.
Oh, it's possible and worth considering. The problem is that climate science deals a lot with chaotic systems. Sorta like hydrology (or whatever you call studying river flows or ocean currents). You can dump rubber ducks in a river and have a high confidence that most will end up downstream, but it is hard or maybe impossible to predict the route of an individual duck or whether it'll even arrive. Ocean currents are even harder, look at the friendly floatees, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... climate science is similar, easy to say it is going to get warmer, hard to say exactly how warm and where and what affect more sulphates will have.
Have to consider unintended consequences as well, probably just an increase in acid rain but I'm reminded of the idiots that think that dumping iron in the ocean will help without considering that fertilizing the algae leads to excessive growth and oxygen usage, resulting in die outs due to lack of oxygen, massive amounts of rotting algae using up more oxygen and finally a dead zone in the ocean.
As I said, worth considering and perhaps using but ideally not depending on by itself. Probably the more diverse solutions, the better.
Fun getting that right as large releases of sulphate aerosols have often resulted in a few years of famine due to the global cooling. One example I came across the other day, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...