People of retirement age have been asking this same question on a personal level since time immemorial. Do I take my pension/investments and quit this mind numbing job, or do I keep working because I donâ(TM)t know what Iâ(TM)d do with myself outside of work. Some people are creative and independent, other people need a structure applied from externally. Some people make their best contributions to society outside of the structure of a paycheck, and some people have no internal motivation to accomplish anything unless forced to.
Would Tesla have invented as prolifically without wealthy patronage giving him a basic income for free, outside of the structure of a paycheck? Would Jeff Bezos have created the second biggest company in the history of the known Universe had he not quit his job?... Would Ford have created the assembly line system as an abstract thing without doing it for profit? Would Eisenhower have found leadership skills outside of the structure of the Army?
Different strokes for different folks. But we shouldnâ(TM)t demonize one or the other group just because we reside in the other one.
This of course sets aside the moral proposition of prioritizing spending in ways that may or may not minimize suffering.
It's not welfare, per se; it's paying people to pursue their own goals. It provides a safe income for artists, musicians, and entertainers to be able to create new media without going through the creativity killing workforce. When people are free of a financial burden they will be free to innovate and pursue their dreams. The reason why modern Americans don't use their free time to do this already is because the American capitalist economy is a burden, not a release. People don't have time or energy to innovate because they're a cog in the wheel. If we release them from the machine, they'll be working for their own joy and not for the bottom line of some giant corporation.
I'll ask this question, which has come up before: If nobody has a job, then where the [bad language redacted] will they find CUSTOMERS?
Customers are the people that install, repair, and maintain the machines and technology that automate our lives. People are going to have to shift from flipping burgers (which doesn't pay hardly enough to make anyone a consumer of any choice, it only shifts money down and then back up in an endless and meaningless cycle) to the logistics involved behind the technology.
Better be ready to be beat up when layed off workers find out it's better to be in lock up then out on the street.
This is why the principle of automation and machine intelligence goes hand in hand with the concept of the Universal Basic Income and free education. So we can create an educated workforce, and those who cannot work have a strong societal safety net that's easy to administrate.
So the battery supposedly has a 1,000 mile range, but you have to stop every 100 to 200 miles to refill it with water?... So it only has a 100-200 mile range. And on top of that, it's a disposable (recyclable) battery, not a rechargable one... pros and cons to that, but it does require an infrastructure of replacement battery stations. Certainly better in my opinion than a charging station, but at least charging stations exist.
This actually raises interesting questions about stereotypes and whether or not they are true, which I think would be a bane in the opinion of most minority groups. Stereotypes, after all, are just statistical observations. This study would seem to provide significant evidence to support stereotypes, and I think that's even more impactful on society than any privacy concerns you may have about how your public actions (in this case, 'Liking' on Facebook) portray your personal beliefs.
They are repeating the measurement multiple times on a stream of photons. They're not measuring the same particle repeatedly, they're not even close to overcoming the uncertainty principle.
You may not have heard about it, but plenty of other people did when Tesla's stock price plummeted 2.5% moments after the review was uploaded to New York Times's website. The damage was immediate. In other words, Tesla lost $100 Million in capital in a matter of minutes because of the New York Times's review. That could be a devastating libel claim, but in the mean time, Tesla has to deal with $100 million fewer dollars.
Not that I would intuitively think Germany actually gets more sunlight than the U.S., but when a scientist (such as myself) says I used a model to extrapolate something, or normalized to conditions, it basically means I performed transformative maths to make the data look good enough to get grant money so I can get tenure because my stats program shot out more asterisks at me, all while being as obtusely transparent about it as I need to be to feel a sufficient amount of moral ambiguity.
You jest about the different time points, but in essence this is what the linked image has basically done. The data from Germany is from 1981-1990 using ground data, while the data from the US is from 1998-2005 using satellite data in a modeled extrapolation.
... is merely to ban apps that contain checkpoint information that is not publicly available. A Checkpoint app that uses data from public police information is still acceptable, and nearly every police department in the nation not only publishes their checkpoint dates and locations, but ADVERTISES THEM on TV and the local news.
Everybody wants so much drama where there actually isn't any. It's annoying.
I also have received a few mistyped emails, where my email address contains no period between my names, someone else's is the same but does contain a period. I have not received important information, just friends of this other person typing in the wrong address. I've simply responded letting them know and I have not gotten them in a long time, but if you're getting important stuff like bank data, then email the person they are supposed to be going to to let them know. I RECOMMEND NOT FORWARDING THE EMAILS, i.e. the emails with bank account information, because that will probably upset someone possibly into suing you for hacking or something dumb like that. People are paranoid these days.
In addition, I have filled out my online profiles to include state of residence and a photo picture just in case anyone is searching for a person they know they can verify very quickly that I am not that person. It helps.
The GPS device was attached to his vehicle, which is driven on public, state and federally owned road infrastructure. There is no legally defensible expectation of privacy in public places. His car is registered to him, with a license plate that ties him to the vehicle. Tracking him visually by having agents follow him, or tracking him by GPS signal, is nominally different both effectively and physically. There was no breach of privacy, there was no attempt to prosecute this man for anything. The FBI has the constitutional right to track him in public places. The individual also has the constitutional right to avoid being tracked, as this individual did by removing the GPS tracker.
Now, if they wiretapped his telephones and recorded all of his conversations without a warrant, that might be a little different... but that's what the Patriot Act specifically allows.
I missed 40 days of school in 8th grade (a personal high point), and I didn't get much better about it during highschool. Now I'm working on a Ph.D. in Neurobiology at a translation research and teaching hospital. I credit my not-being-at-my-public-school for the level of success I've achieved.
As a parent, it's my business where my kid is. I'll smash that damn device and hand it back to the truant officer on my kid's behalf. Schools have become the Juvenile Executive branch of the government, and it's not their responsibility. "We'll educate you with the information we want you to know, whether you like it or not!"
If you can see/hear it, you can copy it. Heck, isn't that what the education system is all about?
How many people held up a recorder to an old mono-boombox back in the day? It wasn't too long ago that everyone recorded TV shows on their VCRs and watched them whenever simply by hooking up an inline video feed with a recording timer. As signals become higher and higher quality, the same recording equipment become available to the consumer at lower and lower cost... why even bother recording? Hook a vinyl recorder up to the speaker leads and have a 99.9999% perfect copy made for you.
I don't understand what the fascination is. It's just because everyone and their nephew has a computer at home... but only one person has to make a recording and post it on the internet to produce the same amount of 'damage' as there being no copy-protection on media at all.
There's only a handful of reasons why you'd hear about this first from a newspaper called "The Inquirer" as opposed to Nature Neuroscience... I'll leave it to you to figure out what those reasons are.
I am a scientist and philosopher (degrees in both Religion and Neurobiology), and this is a valid question. Where did the law of gravity come from? Yes, the Big Bang and pockets of density that turn into galaxies would spontaneously form based on the laws of gravity and entropy, but why do those laws exist to begin with?
That is a question to which an answer will never be found. Never. I'm not being pessimistic, it's simply that to discover the answer, one has to be able to manipulate the system from outside of it. The known universe is 8.79829142 x10^26 meters in diameter. We're about 1.5 x10^0 meters.
You brought up "intention" by suggesting brains are different than bark in some fundamental way (interestingly, "cortex" is latin for "bark"), but that's simply not true. And now you're backing down by saying it's semantics, when it's not, it's a fundamental Aristotle v Plato world view difference. The same biochemical processes underlie the functions of both neurons and plant cells. But just because the brain is a very complex system does not mean we have to invent some "emergent" property... that's just calling it a 'black box' and ignoring the complexity when truly it's just a matter of buckling down and looking at it. Sure the components don't describe the whole, that's what synergism is for; but synergism is sufficient to describe the behavioural effects of neural networks. It's not a matter of not having the tools, it's a matter of not having the patience.
It's not a division error, and linking to an explanation of a division error doesn't make it one any more. There's no reductionism about it. That's like saying that describing how an engine causes a car move is reductionist.
Neurons operate via complex set of modalities involving physical, chemical, and temporal actuators. "Intention" is a human invention foisted upon objects which results in superstition and type I error. Great evolutionarily to protect us from predators, but bad at making us effective logicians. Synergism of neurons can create inordinately complex results, but that does not create a qualitative upheaval in which "intention" is born. Free will cannot exist without cause-and-effect. If we truly had free will, our actions would have no correlation to our environment at all... but they do. What we sense in our environment causes us to produce a certain effect, like sensing a sabertooth tiger "causes" our sympathetic noradrenergic systems to overpower our parasympathetic system and produce a preference to RUN! It's all very elegant... but complexity and synergism is quantitatively exponential, it does not produce something where there was nothing.
Humans don't have "intentions" either, we're just a mix of chemicals that obey physical laws. Evolutionarily, plants could just as easily sense human 'pheromones' in the environment through receptors on their bark or leaves, which initiaties a cascade of chemical events leading to the release of toxic pollen. That's basically what a glutamate receptor in your brain does: senses a neurochemical causing neuronal depolarization of the target cell.
A seedling is capable of germinating without sunlight, because the fruit (the pea) has within it all the necessary nutrients to sprout.
Photosynthesis serves the function of producing sugar from sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide by transfering an electron through several enzymatic structures. It is conceivable that (in order of likelihood), a) the half-inch long seedling was still being fully fed from the fruit, b) simple diffusion of sugar from the blood stream was able to supply the plant with enough sugar to sustain itself, c) free radicals were able to diffuse into the seedling's tissue, donating an electron to the photosynthetic chain.
Slashdot Mirror
People of retirement age have been asking this same question on a personal level since time immemorial. Do I take my pension/investments and quit this mind numbing job, or do I keep working because I donâ(TM)t know what Iâ(TM)d do with myself outside of work. Some people are creative and independent, other people need a structure applied from externally. Some people make their best contributions to society outside of the structure of a paycheck, and some people have no internal motivation to accomplish anything unless forced to. Would Tesla have invented as prolifically without wealthy patronage giving him a basic income for free, outside of the structure of a paycheck? Would Jeff Bezos have created the second biggest company in the history of the known Universe had he not quit his job? ... Would Ford have created the assembly line system as an abstract thing without doing it for profit? Would Eisenhower have found leadership skills outside of the structure of the Army?
Different strokes for different folks. But we shouldnâ(TM)t demonize one or the other group just because we reside in the other one.
This of course sets aside the moral proposition of prioritizing spending in ways that may or may not minimize suffering.
It's not welfare, per se; it's paying people to pursue their own goals. It provides a safe income for artists, musicians, and entertainers to be able to create new media without going through the creativity killing workforce. When people are free of a financial burden they will be free to innovate and pursue their dreams. The reason why modern Americans don't use their free time to do this already is because the American capitalist economy is a burden, not a release. People don't have time or energy to innovate because they're a cog in the wheel. If we release them from the machine, they'll be working for their own joy and not for the bottom line of some giant corporation.
I'll ask this question, which has come up before: If nobody has a job, then where the [bad language redacted] will they find CUSTOMERS?
Customers are the people that install, repair, and maintain the machines and technology that automate our lives. People are going to have to shift from flipping burgers (which doesn't pay hardly enough to make anyone a consumer of any choice, it only shifts money down and then back up in an endless and meaningless cycle) to the logistics involved behind the technology.
Better be ready to be beat up when layed off workers find out it's better to be in lock up then out on the street.
This is why the principle of automation and machine intelligence goes hand in hand with the concept of the Universal Basic Income and free education. So we can create an educated workforce, and those who cannot work have a strong societal safety net that's easy to administrate.
It separates DISSOLVED O2 from the water, it does not split H2O, just like fish do.
Why not just use a horse? Costs less, more reliable, powered by renewable resources ... the horse.
So the battery supposedly has a 1,000 mile range, but you have to stop every 100 to 200 miles to refill it with water? ... So it only has a 100-200 mile range. And on top of that, it's a disposable (recyclable) battery, not a rechargable one ... pros and cons to that, but it does require an infrastructure of replacement battery stations. Certainly better in my opinion than a charging station, but at least charging stations exist.
... was that he set the IPO price way too low. That, or his policy on voting rights for shareholders was way off base.
This actually raises interesting questions about stereotypes and whether or not they are true, which I think would be a bane in the opinion of most minority groups. Stereotypes, after all, are just statistical observations. This study would seem to provide significant evidence to support stereotypes, and I think that's even more impactful on society than any privacy concerns you may have about how your public actions (in this case, 'Liking' on Facebook) portray your personal beliefs.
They are repeating the measurement multiple times on a stream of photons. They're not measuring the same particle repeatedly, they're not even close to overcoming the uncertainty principle.
You may not have heard about it, but plenty of other people did when Tesla's stock price plummeted 2.5% moments after the review was uploaded to New York Times's website. The damage was immediate. In other words, Tesla lost $100 Million in capital in a matter of minutes because of the New York Times's review. That could be a devastating libel claim, but in the mean time, Tesla has to deal with $100 million fewer dollars.
Not that I would intuitively think Germany actually gets more sunlight than the U.S., but when a scientist (such as myself) says I used a model to extrapolate something, or normalized to conditions, it basically means I performed transformative maths to make the data look good enough to get grant money so I can get tenure because my stats program shot out more asterisks at me, all while being as obtusely transparent about it as I need to be to feel a sufficient amount of moral ambiguity.
You jest about the different time points, but in essence this is what the linked image has basically done. The data from Germany is from 1981-1990 using ground data, while the data from the US is from 1998-2005 using satellite data in a modeled extrapolation.
... is merely to ban apps that contain checkpoint information that is not publicly available. A Checkpoint app that uses data from public police information is still acceptable, and nearly every police department in the nation not only publishes their checkpoint dates and locations, but ADVERTISES THEM on TV and the local news.
Everybody wants so much drama where there actually isn't any. It's annoying.
I also have received a few mistyped emails, where my email address contains no period between my names, someone else's is the same but does contain a period. I have not received important information, just friends of this other person typing in the wrong address. I've simply responded letting them know and I have not gotten them in a long time, but if you're getting important stuff like bank data, then email the person they are supposed to be going to to let them know. I RECOMMEND NOT FORWARDING THE EMAILS, i.e. the emails with bank account information, because that will probably upset someone possibly into suing you for hacking or something dumb like that. People are paranoid these days.
In addition, I have filled out my online profiles to include state of residence and a photo picture just in case anyone is searching for a person they know they can verify very quickly that I am not that person. It helps.
The GPS device was attached to his vehicle, which is driven on public, state and federally owned road infrastructure. There is no legally defensible expectation of privacy in public places. His car is registered to him, with a license plate that ties him to the vehicle. Tracking him visually by having agents follow him, or tracking him by GPS signal, is nominally different both effectively and physically. There was no breach of privacy, there was no attempt to prosecute this man for anything. The FBI has the constitutional right to track him in public places. The individual also has the constitutional right to avoid being tracked, as this individual did by removing the GPS tracker.
... but that's what the Patriot Act specifically allows.
Now, if they wiretapped his telephones and recorded all of his conversations without a warrant, that might be a little different
I missed 40 days of school in 8th grade (a personal high point), and I didn't get much better about it during highschool. Now I'm working on a Ph.D. in Neurobiology at a translation research and teaching hospital. I credit my not-being-at-my-public-school for the level of success I've achieved.
As a parent, it's my business where my kid is. I'll smash that damn device and hand it back to the truant officer on my kid's behalf. Schools have become the Juvenile Executive branch of the government, and it's not their responsibility. "We'll educate you with the information we want you to know, whether you like it or not!"
If you can see/hear it, you can copy it. Heck, isn't that what the education system is all about?
... why even bother recording? Hook a vinyl recorder up to the speaker leads and have a 99.9999% perfect copy made for you.
... but only one person has to make a recording and post it on the internet to produce the same amount of 'damage' as there being no copy-protection on media at all.
How many people held up a recorder to an old mono-boombox back in the day? It wasn't too long ago that everyone recorded TV shows on their VCRs and watched them whenever simply by hooking up an inline video feed with a recording timer. As signals become higher and higher quality, the same recording equipment become available to the consumer at lower and lower cost
I don't understand what the fascination is. It's just because everyone and their nephew has a computer at home
I hope the terrorists use AT&T, because my txts get delayed all the time!
There's only a handful of reasons why you'd hear about this first from a newspaper called "The Inquirer" as opposed to Nature Neuroscience ... I'll leave it to you to figure out what those reasons are.
I am a scientist and philosopher (degrees in both Religion and Neurobiology), and this is a valid question. Where did the law of gravity come from? Yes, the Big Bang and pockets of density that turn into galaxies would spontaneously form based on the laws of gravity and entropy, but why do those laws exist to begin with?
That is a question to which an answer will never be found. Never. I'm not being pessimistic, it's simply that to discover the answer, one has to be able to manipulate the system from outside of it. The known universe is 8.79829142 x10^26 meters in diameter. We're about 1.5 x10^0 meters.
You brought up "intention" by suggesting brains are different than bark in some fundamental way (interestingly, "cortex" is latin for "bark"), but that's simply not true. And now you're backing down by saying it's semantics, when it's not, it's a fundamental Aristotle v Plato world view difference. ... that's just calling it a 'black box' and ignoring the complexity when truly it's just a matter of buckling down and looking at it. Sure the components don't describe the whole, that's what synergism is for; but synergism is sufficient to describe the behavioural effects of neural networks.
The same biochemical processes underlie the functions of both neurons and plant cells. But just because the brain is a very complex system does not mean we have to invent some "emergent" property
It's not a matter of not having the tools, it's a matter of not having the patience.
How does anything evolve? What's your point?
... but they do. What we sense in our environment causes us to produce a certain effect, like sensing a sabertooth tiger "causes" our sympathetic noradrenergic systems to overpower our parasympathetic system and produce a preference to RUN! It's all very elegant ... but complexity and synergism is quantitatively exponential, it does not produce something where there was nothing.
It's not a division error, and linking to an explanation of a division error doesn't make it one any more. There's no reductionism about it. That's like saying that describing how an engine causes a car move is reductionist.
Neurons operate via complex set of modalities involving physical, chemical, and temporal actuators. "Intention" is a human invention foisted upon objects which results in superstition and type I error. Great evolutionarily to protect us from predators, but bad at making us effective logicians. Synergism of neurons can create inordinately complex results, but that does not create a qualitative upheaval in which "intention" is born. Free will cannot exist without cause-and-effect. If we truly had free will, our actions would have no correlation to our environment at all
Humans don't have "intentions" either, we're just a mix of chemicals that obey physical laws. Evolutionarily, plants could just as easily sense human 'pheromones' in the environment through receptors on their bark or leaves, which initiaties a cascade of chemical events leading to the release of toxic pollen. That's basically what a glutamate receptor in your brain does: senses a neurochemical causing neuronal depolarization of the target cell.
A seedling is capable of germinating without sunlight, because the fruit (the pea) has within it all the necessary nutrients to sprout.
Photosynthesis serves the function of producing sugar from sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide by transfering an electron through several enzymatic structures. It is conceivable that (in order of likelihood), a) the half-inch long seedling was still being fully fed from the fruit, b) simple diffusion of sugar from the blood stream was able to supply the plant with enough sugar to sustain itself, c) free radicals were able to diffuse into the seedling's tissue, donating an electron to the photosynthetic chain.
"Scientists Grow Plants without Sunlight or Water": http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-grow-plants-wi