Who is exactly neutral?
Give me a neutral source.
On anything.
Seriously, set a baseline for "neutral" and show us what you mean. Someone completely free of any bias.
If you can't find any, then maybe we should admit that it's not inherently bad when news has bias. We should stop looking for that unicorn and instead admit that it's a degree of bias, not the existence of bias, that matters. CNN's bias and Fox news' bias are not equally bad just because they both exist.
I think the only way for a baseline neutral is opposing views. I don't think CNN's or Fox's bias are bad. I think they are both equally biased in opposite directions. By regularly paying attention to both of them, you can get a fairly neutral view. The founding fathers originally tried a more neutral system with the person with the most votes becoming president and the person with the second most votes becoming vice president. It's too bad that this didn't last. The problem then which is even worse today is the opposing views are unwilling to compromise so we end up with gridlock.
Developers develop their apps on emulators, not on the phones themselves. When they do use phones, they are the latest high-performance ones. They never see the slowness, or if they ever do, it is handwaved away with "upgrade your damn phone, Luddite."
Why is this modded down? This is absolutely the truth. Most apps are developed for the newest version of the phone and most developers tend to have the latest phones anyways. My company's solution to this was to send our developers to the store and have them each buy several $20 prepaid devices. Even this though isn't a perfect solution because developers still tend to do most of their testing and development on the higher end devices first and only switch to the crap phones during final testing or when there is a problem.
The way things stand, a girl going to the police because of abuse is more likely to end up in trouble herself than get any protection - is that the way things should be?
The way to fix it is either to legalize it completely or to just arrest the Johns. If you made prostitution legal but made it illegal to pay for sex then you could help the sex trade victims. It's kindof like bribery. It should be 100% legal to offer a bribe and 100% illegal to accept a bribe. If it's illegal to both offer a bribe and accept a bribe then both parties have an incentive to keep it hidden.
Forcing prostitution further and further into the shadows probably reduces consumption slightly but makes it harder to track and harder to keep safe.
There is no: "one weird trick they don't want you to know" to get around it.
There are a few weird tricks. There is a company called unlimitedville that resells unlimited data hotspots. Mine costs $50/month for unlimited sprint. ATT also has an unlisted plan of $100/month for 500G with $1/gig overage which is considerably cheaper than their normal plan. Personally though, as most people probably have their own cell phone and most major providers offer unlimited plans and/or free tethering, it would probably be cheaper and easier to just have each member handle their own internet.
You don't need people to cross borders to do software development for you.
It's not just the illegals though. He is also pushing restrictions on work visas and a very strong "america first" message. This causes FUD across the board. Noone wants to spend money on outsourcing to India just to see the rug pulled out from under them. And let's not forget that India has a large muslim population. It currently isn't being targeted but that introduces more FUD if all of a sudden you can no longer travel between the USA and India for training, etc...
> I'd be very surprised if Amazon profited off of literally every > Prime subscription vs. users just getting the same stuff a la carte. They have to offer Prime to those people as an opportunity cost to get Prime to others.
They can, and perhaps do, "lose" money in that most customers, prime gets them less than what ala carte shipping would get them for the same items. Prime isn't, and shouldn't be, valued that way by Amazon.
The point, I think, is that ala carte customers will buy a few items from Amazon, a few from Walmart, some from eBay, few from Tiger Direct, some from Crutchfield... Ala carte customers can easily drift away from using Amazon at all. Once people pay $99 for Prime, they are likely to go to Amazon first for almost all online purchases. That, I think, is the point of Amazon Prime. The main value for Amazon isn't getting the $99, it's havimg a customer committed to Amazon.
Exactly. If the average customer pays $99 for prime but then because of that sunk cost buys a majority of their stuff from amazon, even if it costs Amazon $150 worth of shipping on average for that customer, they still were able to "buy" and lock in a loyal customer for only $51 per year. The other offerings like video are just ways to tip the scale so people pay the $99. Once people pay the $99 even if it's for video and not for the shipping, they have something they paid for so are likely to want to "get their money's worth" and shop Amazon first.
You are being intentionally stupid. I only want 2 day shipping. I don't want TV shows about transsexuals or all the other garbage that's included now. I buy stuff from amazon once or twice a week, so saying I can get the same two day shipping for $79 by buying ala carte 2-day shipping is factually wrong.
I think you are missing the point. It is impossible for Amazon to 2-day ship stuff to you once or twice a week all year long for $79 (or even $99). They still have to pay UPS, Fedex, etc... In order for your Prime to exist at the sub $100 range, Amazon either has to raise the price of the products it is shipping or find infrequent users to subsidize the frequent users. The "other garbage" that you complain about is stuff that Amazon can provide very cheap in order to hook more infrequent shoppers. The infrequent shoppers are really what drives Prime. They pay the $99 and once they pay it, they tend to do all their purchases on Amazon so not only do they get the added purchases, in many cases, the infrequent shopper never buys enough stuff to fully make up for the $99 worth of shipping that was paid up front.
For 3D design, all projects that are "customizable" also have the source available. I've recently started teaching myself 3D design and being able to view the source on thingiverse brings back memories of when I learned to code by using the logo turtle and viewing the source of Oregon Trail.
The problem is that umbrellas are too cheap. If they make the deposit any higher people won't use the service out of fear of losing it, but at the same time it's not enough to motivate them to return the item.
This hasn't stopped Redbox in the USA. Redbox doesn't even charge a deposit but they will continue to charge you for 30 days if you don't return it. After that, it's yours.
It shows up as the 4th link in the google results when I do a google search for 'xhamster' It could be even higher for certain users. What position did it show up at 2 months ago? My guess is that google changed their sorting algorithm to give wikipedia more prominence, articles more prominence, or something of the sorts. A large percentage of people search for websites instead of going directly to the url even if they know the url.
In a strange sort of way, non-biodegradable plastic is working against global warming. It acts as a carbon sink by trapping carbon. The problem with co2 is we are releasing it by burning trees and oil. If we capture it in plastic, we prevent it from being released. In some ways, it would make sense to capture as much carbon as we can in the form of non-biodegradable plastic and bury it underground where it can't be released. Kind of like what we are doing with landfills. The more oil that is used for plastic and ends up in the landfill, the less of it that ends up in the air as too much co2.
But they have no problem with killing a bunch of animals (that certainly feel pain) for their precious vegetables:
Millions of animals are killed every year, Davis says, to prepare land for growing crops, "like corn, soybean, wheat and barley, the staples of a vegan diet." The animals in this case are mice and moles and rabbits and other creatures that are run over by tractors, or lose their habitat to make way for farming, so they are not as "visible" as cattle, he says. And that, Davis says, gives rise to a fundamental question: "What is it that makes it OK to kill animals of the field so that we can eat [vegetables or fruits] but not pigs or chickens or cows?"
I guess a small ugly hidden-from-view animal like a mouse doesn't count.
This argument would hold a lot more weight if 80% of crops grown weren't feed to animals. It's impossible to live in a world without suffering but that doesn't mean that you can't try to minimize it. Also, there is a huge difference between a mouse or deer living a free and natural life until it's untimely demise and a chicken raised in a cage where it can't move and then scheduled to be killed before it's even reaches adulthood.
The ability to feel pain is not what makes you a person. Agency is the quality of being able to make choices reflecting your values and priorities and fighting for them over time. You know how you can be certain AI's are not people? AI has never come even REMOTELY close to winning a Turing test... to the point where AI competitions have made it a forgone conclusion that can't be the criteria they use... since all AI's will always fail that way. And, btw, why is it fetus's are not viewed as people? It's so the more powerful (their dark, dark parents) can rule over and murder those who aren't capable of protecting their own interests.
Current AI is nowhere close to any level of sentience (or Agency). A housefly or earthworm has a million times more sentience than current AI. That doesn't mean that if we ever crack the "what makes a person conscious", we won't be able to have AI that have that same quality. As far as your fetus comment, there are plenty of people that do view fetuses as people which is why we have double homicide laws for pregnant women and the whole prolife/prochoice debate.
Today its about protecting animals. There are judges in Europe who are calling them "people". There are science fiction shows where "Holograms" and AI are called people. After AI, ordinary rocks and ideas will be considered people. Eventually everything will be "protected" equally in that nothing will be protected.
If AI or holograms can suffer and feel pain then why shouldn't it be protected? The new show Westworld is exploring some of that. At one point slaves were considered "just animals" and were treated like animals. How much protection different animals should receive is debatable. We have plenty of laws already making it illegal to abuse dogs and cats and what constitutes abuse. We have ethic boards which decide which experiments are ethical and which are not whether it includes humans or other animals. Just like almost any ethical decision, some people are going to take a harder stance than others but most people can agree that you shouldn't torture small furry animals just for fun and that, yes, animals can feel pain.
Not just killing -- harming. Tell me, where did the seed tissue for growing this "meat" come from? Some animal had to be harmed along the way to enable this manufacturing process.
This is the kind of thinking that makes people hate vegans. Many of our modern medicines can be traced back to experiments done by the nazis and many of our technologies can be traced back to slavery. The goal shouldn't be to not cause any harm. That's impossible. Plowing a corn field likely harms a ton of animals living in the soil. The goal should be to reduce the amount of pain and suffering in the world not eliminate it. You can't eliminate it. You should also definitely not worry about stuff twice removed. Everything can be traced to something horrific if you talk about stuff twice removed.
And I would say to you those people are just copying a real substantiated philosophy and picking the parts they like best and don't know any better.
You can't eliminate all pain just like you can't not buy from all companies that supports X. Everything is completely interconnected. That being said, voting with your dollars is still a good way to help bring about change. Whether it is attempting to not support sweat shops, child labor, environmental exploitation, or animal cruelty, you can help make a difference by attempting to buy ethically sourced items. Eliminating meat and leather is the bulk of the profit for factory farms. Likewise, if you are against veal, the number 1 way to stop veal production is to not drink milk. Same goes for eggs. Where did all the male chickens go? I think vegans that look at ingredient lists and/or won't eat someone's birthday cake because it is made with eggs and milk are probably taking it too far but by not buying meat, leather, eggs, and milk, vegans significantly reduce the amount of animals that have to suffer and die for them to live.
People are vegan for different reasons. Some are vegan for health reasons, Some are vegan for the environment, but most are vegan because they are against killing animals that feel pain.
The good thing is that the car's sensors and algorithms can be fixed. It sounds like it's mostly a case of Volvo overlooking the effect of jumping animals. According to the Volvo information about their autonomous cars, they have camera, radar, laser, and ultrasonic sensors. With the right algorithms, the car should be much better than a human at detecting animals at night, and respond much quicker too.
There will always be unknown objects at or near ground level. With camera, radar, laser, and ultrasonic sensors, how did they screw up the depth perception that badly? Will it be able to detect a small child? What about a medium size child? What about a box? What about a bumper that fell of a car? What about a flock of birds? What about a chair,cage of turkeys,sofa,trashcan,bale of hay, etc.. that fell off a truck. If you're designing it for known obstacles, you're likely doing it wrong. Every human driver out there is able to detect something that isn't suppose to be there and take corrective actions even if they don't know what the unknown object is.
Either way. Seems like this indicates a need to analyse the sensor data from this type of source to identify it properly in the future. Or the need for an extra sensor type.
If the shape of the object interferes with your code then you're doing it wrong. Whether it is a kangaroo, a bird, a box, a balloon, or a sheet of glass, if something is in the roadway, you need to stop. Because of the lack of intelligence and depth perception, I would expect a self driving car to pretty much require a second sensing mechanism like sonar, radar, etc...
A) trees can't be 6 feet apart, trunk to trunk should be about 30'
This makes it even cheaper.
B) native species to the area are needed and have a cost basis of about $40
C) ( blocked views ) you can not plant a tree on a corner C1) nor can it be 75 feet from the corner C2) drivers side can not be 85 feet from the corner C3) Corner does not start at the swale or hellstrip, starts at the property line
D) digging a hole is not easy, you got top sandy earth then coral.
E) Native species are in tune to drought, so watering is an option, not a requirement. the city has a truck that waters plants.
F) North side plantings incur a liability of blocking the sun on private land ( sun rights ), so if I have solar, how will the city compensate me. F1) South Side plantings cover the pavement.
G) if a driver hit's a tree planted by the city, does the driver have a legal right to claim anything to the city? ( this is where DOT studies come into play ) and does the city have to buy insurance for this.
As for the rest of this, I almost added an disclaimer to my post that this was not counting any political or lawyer BS.
My uncle used to put up new telephone poles. I believe it was only a two man crew. It was in the dakotas which was very rocky and hard to dig. They would drop a stick of dynamite in the ground, cover it with a heavy mat and blow it up.
We have one of the highest levels ever of unemployed men ages 18-65. If we actually stopped all the political BS, we could actually do projects like this.
That is absurd. There is absolutely no way you are going to plant trees along a mile of urban roadway for $25-$40k. You need to add at least two zeros. Even more in LA where no plant life survives without water, so you would need to trench for irrigation pipes, and pay for ongoing maintenance.
25k-40k is about what the average person makes in a year. Surely one person could plant trees along a mile long stretch in a year even if all they had was a single shovel. You can buy 12 inch seedlings for under $1 a piece so it would cost less than $1k to put one every 6 feet. It would take a few years before they got large enough to provide shade but it's not absurd to think that it's possible to do something like this especially considering in most cases, the state already has caretakers that mow and otherwise take care of land adjacent to the roads.
and 2) Office Macros (which end users stupidly allow)
The blame is only partially on the end user. The blame is really on Microsoft for not properly sandboxing the macros. 99% of macros should only affect the spreadsheet that they are written for and never leave the program. If a macro does need to do something like save to the harddrive then Microsoft should have a really big warning and make them manually enable that functionality but affected stuff outside of the spreadsheet program should be completely disabled by default.
We could get into the much bigger flaw of your entire line of reasoning by observing that a virus scanner cannot equate to your immune system. Your immune system is composed of both offensive and defensive capabilities, proactive and reactive, layer upon layer. Your skin is part of your immune system. The closest software analogy to this is the Operating System, certainly not the lowly Virus Scanner.
Yes, your entire body is built to resist invaders just like the entire Operating System should be built to resist invaders but that's generally not what people are talking about when they say immune system. A good analogy for a virus scanner might be your white blood cells. As the OP said, get rid of your white blood cells and see how well you fare. They do cause problems in some people and are not 100% effective but generally not having them is a lot worse for most people.
If they're doing their job, most of their work is not done in the debating chamber. How productive would you look if someone judged you solely by the time you're in large meetings?
I think it's very valid to judge someone on the contents of the meeting. If I spent all day in meetings and we discussed stuff that wasn't relevant to the business like the cardinal's game last week or argue over which employee gets employee of the week then yes, you should be able to judge me for it. Non-binding resolutions are not laws, they are just filler.
There is only one solution for greed: Complete and total anihilation of every single human being on earth.
I'm not sure of that. I make below 6 figures, have 3 kids, and am well past the point where I want more money or stuff. I have plenty for my needs. I would gladly take a pay cut for more free time and no amount of money could entice me to work more hours that I'm currently working. Not everyone is wired for greed. Money has very little value to me. I would much prefer more vacation time and/or more interesting work to more money at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
Who is exactly neutral?
Give me a neutral source.
On anything.
Seriously, set a baseline for "neutral" and show us what you mean. Someone completely free of any bias.
If you can't find any, then maybe we should admit that it's not inherently bad when news has bias. We should stop looking for that unicorn and instead admit that it's a degree of bias, not the existence of bias, that matters. CNN's bias and Fox news' bias are not equally bad just because they both exist.
I think the only way for a baseline neutral is opposing views. I don't think CNN's or Fox's bias are bad. I think they are both equally biased in opposite directions. By regularly paying attention to both of them, you can get a fairly neutral view. The founding fathers originally tried a more neutral system with the person with the most votes becoming president and the person with the second most votes becoming vice president. It's too bad that this didn't last. The problem then which is even worse today is the opposing views are unwilling to compromise so we end up with gridlock.
Developers develop their apps on emulators, not on the phones themselves. When they do use phones, they are the latest high-performance ones. They never see the slowness, or if they ever do, it is handwaved away with "upgrade your damn phone, Luddite."
Why is this modded down? This is absolutely the truth. Most apps are developed for the newest version of the phone and most developers tend to have the latest phones anyways. My company's solution to this was to send our developers to the store and have them each buy several $20 prepaid devices. Even this though isn't a perfect solution because developers still tend to do most of their testing and development on the higher end devices first and only switch to the crap phones during final testing or when there is a problem.
The way things stand, a girl going to the police because of abuse is more likely to end up in trouble herself than get any protection - is that the way things should be?
The way to fix it is either to legalize it completely or to just arrest the Johns. If you made prostitution legal but made it illegal to pay for sex then you could help the sex trade victims. It's kindof like bribery. It should be 100% legal to offer a bribe and 100% illegal to accept a bribe. If it's illegal to both offer a bribe and accept a bribe then both parties have an incentive to keep it hidden.
Forcing prostitution further and further into the shadows probably reduces consumption slightly but makes it harder to track and harder to keep safe.
There is no: "one weird trick they don't want you to know" to get around it.
There are a few weird tricks. There is a company called unlimitedville that resells unlimited data hotspots. Mine costs $50/month for unlimited sprint. ATT also has an unlisted plan of $100/month for 500G with $1/gig overage which is considerably cheaper than their normal plan. Personally though, as most people probably have their own cell phone and most major providers offer unlimited plans and/or free tethering, it would probably be cheaper and easier to just have each member handle their own internet.
Did he?
You don't need people to cross borders to do software development for you.
It's not just the illegals though. He is also pushing restrictions on work visas and a very strong "america first" message. This causes FUD across the board. Noone wants to spend money on outsourcing to India just to see the rug pulled out from under them. And let's not forget that India has a large muslim population. It currently isn't being targeted but that introduces more FUD if all of a sudden you can no longer travel between the USA and India for training, etc...
> I'd be very surprised if Amazon profited off of literally every
> Prime subscription vs. users just getting the same stuff a la carte. They have to offer Prime to those people as an opportunity cost to get Prime to others.
They can, and perhaps do, "lose" money in that most customers, prime gets them less than what ala carte shipping would get them for the same items. Prime isn't, and shouldn't be, valued that way by Amazon.
The point, I think, is that ala carte customers will buy a few items from Amazon, a few from Walmart, some from eBay, few from Tiger Direct, some from Crutchfield ... Ala carte customers can easily drift away from using Amazon at all. Once people pay $99 for Prime, they are likely to go to Amazon first for almost all online purchases. That, I think, is the point of Amazon Prime. The main value for Amazon isn't getting the $99, it's havimg a customer committed to Amazon.
Exactly. If the average customer pays $99 for prime but then because of that sunk cost buys a majority of their stuff from amazon, even if it costs Amazon $150 worth of shipping on average for that customer, they still were able to "buy" and lock in a loyal customer for only $51 per year. The other offerings like video are just ways to tip the scale so people pay the $99. Once people pay the $99 even if it's for video and not for the shipping, they have something they paid for so are likely to want to "get their money's worth" and shop Amazon first.
You are being intentionally stupid. I only want 2 day shipping. I don't want TV shows about transsexuals or all the other garbage that's included now. I buy stuff from amazon once or twice a week, so saying I can get the same two day shipping for $79 by buying ala carte 2-day shipping is factually wrong.
I think you are missing the point. It is impossible for Amazon to 2-day ship stuff to you once or twice a week all year long for $79 (or even $99). They still have to pay UPS, Fedex, etc... In order for your Prime to exist at the sub $100 range, Amazon either has to raise the price of the products it is shipping or find infrequent users to subsidize the frequent users. The "other garbage" that you complain about is stuff that Amazon can provide very cheap in order to hook more infrequent shoppers. The infrequent shoppers are really what drives Prime. They pay the $99 and once they pay it, they tend to do all their purchases on Amazon so not only do they get the added purchases, in many cases, the infrequent shopper never buys enough stuff to fully make up for the $99 worth of shipping that was paid up front.
For 3D design, all projects that are "customizable" also have the source available. I've recently started teaching myself 3D design and being able to view the source on thingiverse brings back memories of when I learned to code by using the logo turtle and viewing the source of Oregon Trail.
The problem is that umbrellas are too cheap. If they make the deposit any higher people won't use the service out of fear of losing it, but at the same time it's not enough to motivate them to return the item.
This hasn't stopped Redbox in the USA. Redbox doesn't even charge a deposit but they will continue to charge you for 30 days if you don't return it. After that, it's yours.
It shows up as the 4th link in the google results when I do a google search for 'xhamster' It could be even higher for certain users. What position did it show up at 2 months ago? My guess is that google changed their sorting algorithm to give wikipedia more prominence, articles more prominence, or something of the sorts. A large percentage of people search for websites instead of going directly to the url even if they know the url.
In a strange sort of way, non-biodegradable plastic is working against global warming. It acts as a carbon sink by trapping carbon. The problem with co2 is we are releasing it by burning trees and oil. If we capture it in plastic, we prevent it from being released. In some ways, it would make sense to capture as much carbon as we can in the form of non-biodegradable plastic and bury it underground where it can't be released. Kind of like what we are doing with landfills. The more oil that is used for plastic and ends up in the landfill, the less of it that ends up in the air as too much co2.
But they have no problem with killing a bunch of animals (that certainly feel pain) for their precious vegetables:
Millions of animals are killed every year, Davis says, to prepare land for growing crops, "like corn, soybean, wheat and barley, the staples of a vegan diet." The animals in this case are mice and moles and rabbits and other creatures that are run over by tractors, or lose their habitat to make way for farming, so they are not as "visible" as cattle, he says. And that, Davis says, gives rise to a fundamental question: "What is it that makes it OK to kill animals of the field so that we can eat [vegetables or fruits] but not pigs or chickens or cows?"
I guess a small ugly hidden-from-view animal like a mouse doesn't count.
This argument would hold a lot more weight if 80% of crops grown weren't feed to animals. It's impossible to live in a world without suffering but that doesn't mean that you can't try to minimize it. Also, there is a huge difference between a mouse or deer living a free and natural life until it's untimely demise and a chicken raised in a cage where it can't move and then scheduled to be killed before it's even reaches adulthood.
The ability to feel pain is not what makes you a person. Agency is the quality of being able to make choices reflecting your values and priorities and fighting for them over time. You know how you can be certain AI's are not people? AI has never come even REMOTELY close to winning a Turing test ... to the point where AI competitions have made it a forgone conclusion that can't be the criteria they use ... since all AI's will always fail that way. And, btw, why is it fetus's are not viewed as people? It's so the more powerful (their dark, dark parents) can rule over and murder those who aren't capable of protecting their own interests.
Current AI is nowhere close to any level of sentience (or Agency). A housefly or earthworm has a million times more sentience than current AI. That doesn't mean that if we ever crack the "what makes a person conscious", we won't be able to have AI that have that same quality. As far as your fetus comment, there are plenty of people that do view fetuses as people which is why we have double homicide laws for pregnant women and the whole prolife/prochoice debate.
Today its about protecting animals.
There are judges in Europe who are calling them "people".
There are science fiction shows where "Holograms" and AI are called people.
After AI, ordinary rocks and ideas will be considered people.
Eventually everything will be "protected" equally in that nothing will be protected.
If AI or holograms can suffer and feel pain then why shouldn't it be protected? The new show Westworld is exploring some of that. At one point slaves were considered "just animals" and were treated like animals. How much protection different animals should receive is debatable. We have plenty of laws already making it illegal to abuse dogs and cats and what constitutes abuse. We have ethic boards which decide which experiments are ethical and which are not whether it includes humans or other animals. Just like almost any ethical decision, some people are going to take a harder stance than others but most people can agree that you shouldn't torture small furry animals just for fun and that, yes, animals can feel pain.
Not just killing -- harming. Tell me, where did the seed tissue for growing this "meat" come from? Some animal had to be harmed along the way to enable this manufacturing process.
This is the kind of thinking that makes people hate vegans. Many of our modern medicines can be traced back to experiments done by the nazis and many of our technologies can be traced back to slavery. The goal shouldn't be to not cause any harm. That's impossible. Plowing a corn field likely harms a ton of animals living in the soil. The goal should be to reduce the amount of pain and suffering in the world not eliminate it. You can't eliminate it. You should also definitely not worry about stuff twice removed. Everything can be traced to something horrific if you talk about stuff twice removed.
And I would say to you those people are just copying a real substantiated philosophy and picking the parts they like best and don't know any better.
You can't eliminate all pain just like you can't not buy from all companies that supports X. Everything is completely interconnected. That being said, voting with your dollars is still a good way to help bring about change. Whether it is attempting to not support sweat shops, child labor, environmental exploitation, or animal cruelty, you can help make a difference by attempting to buy ethically sourced items. Eliminating meat and leather is the bulk of the profit for factory farms. Likewise, if you are against veal, the number 1 way to stop veal production is to not drink milk. Same goes for eggs. Where did all the male chickens go? I think vegans that look at ingredient lists and/or won't eat someone's birthday cake because it is made with eggs and milk are probably taking it too far but by not buying meat, leather, eggs, and milk, vegans significantly reduce the amount of animals that have to suffer and die for them to live.
People are vegan for different reasons. Some are vegan for health reasons, Some are vegan for the environment, but most are vegan because they are against killing animals that feel pain.
The good thing is that the car's sensors and algorithms can be fixed. It sounds like it's mostly a case of Volvo overlooking the effect of jumping animals. According to the Volvo information about their autonomous cars, they have camera, radar, laser, and ultrasonic sensors. With the right algorithms, the car should be much better than a human at detecting animals at night, and respond much quicker too.
There will always be unknown objects at or near ground level. With camera, radar, laser, and ultrasonic sensors, how did they screw up the depth perception that badly? Will it be able to detect a small child? What about a medium size child? What about a box? What about a bumper that fell of a car? What about a flock of birds? What about a chair,cage of turkeys,sofa,trashcan,bale of hay, etc.. that fell off a truck. If you're designing it for known obstacles, you're likely doing it wrong. Every human driver out there is able to detect something that isn't suppose to be there and take corrective actions even if they don't know what the unknown object is.
Either way. Seems like this indicates a need to analyse the sensor data from this type of source to identify it properly in the future. Or the need for an extra sensor type.
If the shape of the object interferes with your code then you're doing it wrong. Whether it is a kangaroo, a bird, a box, a balloon, or a sheet of glass, if something is in the roadway, you need to stop. Because of the lack of intelligence and depth perception, I would expect a self driving car to pretty much require a second sensing mechanism like sonar, radar, etc...
A) trees can't be 6 feet apart, trunk to trunk should be about 30'
This makes it even cheaper.
B) native species to the area are needed and have a cost basis of about $40
C) ( blocked views ) you can not plant a tree on a corner
C1) nor can it be 75 feet from the corner
C2) drivers side can not be 85 feet from the corner
C3) Corner does not start at the swale or hellstrip, starts at the property line
D) digging a hole is not easy, you got top sandy earth then coral.
E) Native species are in tune to drought, so watering is an option, not a requirement. the city has a truck that waters plants.
F) North side plantings incur a liability of blocking the sun on private land ( sun rights ), so if I have solar, how will the city compensate me.
F1) South Side plantings cover the pavement.
G) if a driver hit's a tree planted by the city, does the driver have a legal right to claim anything to the city? ( this is where DOT studies come into play ) and does the city have to buy insurance for this.
As for the rest of this, I almost added an disclaimer to my post that this was not counting any political or lawyer BS.
I also should have included a link to this article: https://www.bloomberg.com/view...
My uncle used to put up new telephone poles. I believe it was only a two man crew. It was in the dakotas which was very rocky and hard to dig. They would drop a stick of dynamite in the ground, cover it with a heavy mat and blow it up.
We have one of the highest levels ever of unemployed men ages 18-65. If we actually stopped all the political BS, we could actually do projects like this.
That is absurd. There is absolutely no way you are going to plant trees along a mile of urban roadway for $25-$40k. You need to add at least two zeros. Even more in LA where no plant life survives without water, so you would need to trench for irrigation pipes, and pay for ongoing maintenance.
25k-40k is about what the average person makes in a year. Surely one person could plant trees along a mile long stretch in a year even if all they had was a single shovel. You can buy 12 inch seedlings for under $1 a piece so it would cost less than $1k to put one every 6 feet. It would take a few years before they got large enough to provide shade but it's not absurd to think that it's possible to do something like this especially considering in most cases, the state already has caretakers that mow and otherwise take care of land adjacent to the roads.
and 2) Office Macros (which end users stupidly allow)
The blame is only partially on the end user. The blame is really on Microsoft for not properly sandboxing the macros. 99% of macros should only affect the spreadsheet that they are written for and never leave the program. If a macro does need to do something like save to the harddrive then Microsoft should have a really big warning and make them manually enable that functionality but affected stuff outside of the spreadsheet program should be completely disabled by default.
We could get into the much bigger flaw of your entire line of reasoning by observing that a virus scanner cannot equate to your immune system. Your immune system is composed of both offensive and defensive capabilities, proactive and reactive, layer upon layer. Your skin is part of your immune system. The closest software analogy to this is the Operating System, certainly not the lowly Virus Scanner.
Yes, your entire body is built to resist invaders just like the entire Operating System should be built to resist invaders but that's generally not what people are talking about when they say immune system. A good analogy for a virus scanner might be your white blood cells. As the OP said, get rid of your white blood cells and see how well you fare. They do cause problems in some people and are not 100% effective but generally not having them is a lot worse for most people.
If they're doing their job, most of their work is not done in the debating chamber. How productive would you look if someone judged you solely by the time you're in large meetings?
I think it's very valid to judge someone on the contents of the meeting. If I spent all day in meetings and we discussed stuff that wasn't relevant to the business like the cardinal's game last week or argue over which employee gets employee of the week then yes, you should be able to judge me for it. Non-binding resolutions are not laws, they are just filler.
There is only one solution for greed: Complete and total anihilation of every single human being on earth.
I'm not sure of that. I make below 6 figures, have 3 kids, and am well past the point where I want more money or stuff. I have plenty for my needs. I would gladly take a pay cut for more free time and no amount of money could entice me to work more hours that I'm currently working. Not everyone is wired for greed. Money has very little value to me. I would much prefer more vacation time and/or more interesting work to more money at this point.