For someone in aid and development it is then obvious that...
You don't have to be in aid and development to realize that somebody saying "Fuck it, let's just fling computers at 'em from the sky." is a pretty good indication that they're out of ideas, but not funding.
A Slashdot global warming discussion is like old people fucking. It's messy and not much gets accomplished.
And... ...While everyone technically has the right equipment for this, not everyone's seems to be working quite right. ...Things are stretched and distorted beyond recognition. ...People take completely unrealistic positions and refuse to admit they can't hold them. ...It sounds like it might be entertaining, but it's mostly just disturbing.
I sympathize with you. You tried to make a point using sarcasm, or irony, or whatever you want to call it. That doesn't work here. You did fine; your comment drips with sarcasm. Koko the gorilla would get it if someone signed it to her, and would make little laughing noises. Unfortunately, we're not dealing with Koko's caliber here.
Why should the people of North Dakota pay for tsunami monitoring for California? If the west coast wants earth quake and tsunami warning, they can pay for it.
This has got to be the best discussion ever. This guy here, and the one up there that wants to know what "moral right" other people have to use his taxes for education.
These are the people that eat all the food on the life raft.
Nope... your opinion doesn't count as a decent scientific reference, if you could link to something that would be great, thanks.
I detect just a small amount of sarcasm there, which means you must be at least familiar with the stuff. I'd like you to turn that sarcasm detector up a notch or two, reread the posts, and then see what you think. Here, I'll help (without sarcasm, I promise):
We're actually in agreement. My original post references the sample bias that can lead to counterintuitive statistical trends when you look at the introduction of protective gear. There are plenty of examples of this: helmets and head injuries in WWI, Abraham Ward's observations about bomber damage in WWII, body armor and limb injuries in present day conflicts, etc. We're basically talking about protective equipment providing the opportunity to treat people after some event rather than bury them. Your anecdote is an excellent example of that. It boggles my mind that someone would willing choose to forgo a helmet when cycling at 20 mph or so, let alone forgo a seat belt at 60. However, there are people that feel very strongly about it, and they always seem to have some twisted statistic in their pocket to justify it. My original post was a sarcastic jab at both.
Agreed. Reading the email exchange, I'd say Prof. Miller is quite the drama queen. (I'm sorry, I had to.)
It seems to me that if he had simply talked rationally about this from the start (after the poster was removed) this whole problem could have been avoided.
Serious face this time: I suspect he's enjoying himself.
I had heard 1 million, not 8 million. To be honest, I find it difficult to comprehend the amount of labor it would take to build, install, configure, and maintain 1 million robots.
So, what, everyone, being unemployed, just sits in the dark and starves ?
I wouldn't worry about it. Every so often, there's a story about how robots are going to do everything. These are written by people that are either (a) totally unfamiliar with the reality of robotics, (b) trying to keep their AI research funded. Robots are a royal pain on a good day, and I don't think there are many roboticists that would trust one to load their dishwasher. (Uh, maybe we could try it on your dishwasher first...with plastic plates.) The author seems somewhat aware of all that, but you have to admire his persistence. He stretches the everyday definition to include what really sounds like expert systems, but unfortunately:
Most economists aren't taking these worries very seriously. The idea that computers might significantly disrupt human labor markets—and, thus, further weaken the global economy—so far remains on the fringes.
Undeterred, our hero finds his loon:
The only deep treatment of this story that I've seen has come from a software developer named Martin Ford.... Over the next few days, I'll be examining how Ford's predictions are playing out in a number of professions.
Obama: "Vote for me and Joe Biden will give a random senator a noogie at an undisclosed time!"
Biden: "Hah-ha! When you least expect it, expect it!"
That'd get my vote.
Slashdot Mirror
Don Draper, is that you?
For someone in aid and development it is then obvious that...
You don't have to be in aid and development to realize that somebody saying "Fuck it, let's just fling computers at 'em from the sky." is a pretty good indication that they're out of ideas, but not funding.
A Slashdot global warming discussion is like old people fucking. It's messy and not much gets accomplished.
And...
...While everyone technically has the right equipment for this, not everyone's seems to be working quite right.
...Things are stretched and distorted beyond recognition.
...People take completely unrealistic positions and refuse to admit they can't hold them.
...It sounds like it might be entertaining, but it's mostly just disturbing.
Wait, who's planning to steal my clothes?
It offends me to see people (including executives, managers, and shareholders of a company) attacked because they provide a service for a profit.
Your post is best read in the voice of Jack Donaghy.
I sympathize with you. You tried to make a point using sarcasm, or irony, or whatever you want to call it. That doesn't work here. You did fine; your comment drips with sarcasm. Koko the gorilla would get it if someone signed it to her, and would make little laughing noises. Unfortunately, we're not dealing with Koko's caliber here.
Why should the people of North Dakota pay for tsunami monitoring for California? If the west coast wants earth quake and tsunami warning, they can pay for it.
This has got to be the best discussion ever. This guy here, and the one up there that wants to know what "moral right" other people have to use his taxes for education.
These are the people that eat all the food on the life raft.
today, at least.
I had no idea that NOAA, NIST, and USGS operate on such small budgets. Color me impressed.
So, sorta like a capacitor that explodes every ten years or so? I gotta get me some of those.
Nice try, Mickey.
Let's not beat around the bush: We're hoping it was Mickey.
So, to "deal with" customs and export laws. Should we just be using the word "smuggler", or am I missing something?
And what the hell does Bora Bora have to do with anything?
Tricksy Legosesers, precious Legoses.
Yeah....smart people..don't have much use for them.
That's OK. We smart people have thought up some uses for you. It'll be great. We got all the bugs worked out this time. We promise.
Nope... your opinion doesn't count as a decent scientific reference, if you could link to something that would be great, thanks.
I detect just a small amount of sarcasm there, which means you must be at least familiar with the stuff. I'd like you to turn that sarcasm detector up a notch or two, reread the posts, and then see what you think. Here, I'll help (without sarcasm, I promise):
We're actually in agreement. My original post references the sample bias that can lead to counterintuitive statistical trends when you look at the introduction of protective gear. There are plenty of examples of this: helmets and head injuries in WWI, Abraham Ward's observations about bomber damage in WWII, body armor and limb injuries in present day conflicts, etc. We're basically talking about protective equipment providing the opportunity to treat people after some event rather than bury them. Your anecdote is an excellent example of that. It boggles my mind that someone would willing choose to forgo a helmet when cycling at 20 mph or so, let alone forgo a seat belt at 60. However, there are people that feel very strongly about it, and they always seem to have some twisted statistic in their pocket to justify it. My original post was a sarcastic jab at both.
Same way wearing a seat belt increases your likelihood of being treated for injuries...
...as opposed to simply being killed.
Why is that? Evidence clearly shows helmets save lives and reduce injury in just about everything, including motorcycles.
Why? Selection bias. Without the helmet, there's no opportunity for treatment. Sorta like Abraham Wald's bomber armor.
There is little evidence that helmet wearing has a meaningful reduction of the injury rate to on-road cyclists.
I'm willing to bet that wearing a helmet actually increases the number of cyclists treated for head injuries.
It seems to me that if he had simply talked rationally about this from the start (after the poster was removed) this whole problem could have been avoided.
Serious face this time: I suspect he's enjoying himself.
I had heard 1 million, not 8 million. To be honest, I find it difficult to comprehend the amount of labor it would take to build, install, configure, and maintain 1 million robots.
So, what, everyone, being unemployed, just sits in the dark and starves ?
I wouldn't worry about it. Every so often, there's a story about how robots are going to do everything. These are written by people that are either (a) totally unfamiliar with the reality of robotics, (b) trying to keep their AI research funded. Robots are a royal pain on a good day, and I don't think there are many roboticists that would trust one to load their dishwasher. (Uh, maybe we could try it on your dishwasher first...with plastic plates.) The author seems somewhat aware of all that, but you have to admire his persistence. He stretches the everyday definition to include what really sounds like expert systems, but unfortunately:
Most economists aren't taking these worries very seriously. The idea that computers might significantly disrupt human labor markets—and, thus, further weaken the global economy—so far remains on the fringes.
Undeterred, our hero finds his loon:
The only deep treatment of this story that I've seen has come from a software developer named Martin Ford. ... Over the next few days, I'll be examining how Ford's predictions are playing out in a number of professions.
Well, power to him.
On a five year horizon, yes.
Obama: "Vote for me and Joe Biden will give a random senator a noogie at an undisclosed time!"
Biden: "Hah-ha! When you least expect it, expect it!"
That'd get my vote.