decarbonization is a convenient side effect for those who don't want a warmer world.
The only way to not have an unbearably warmer world is to reduce our energy usage. If energy usage continues to grow at it's current rate, regardless of the technology used to generate it, earth's oceans will boil away in a few hundred years: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...
I think the human body is programmed for maximum reward with minimal effort. If you can trigger your brain's reward center by vicariously watching someone else play the game then you still get the reward without needing to put in any effort. Just like rats starve to death if given a button that stimulates their reward center as it's simpler and easier to push the button than it is to actually eat.
"That is also why today both parents work, even though they could enjoy the standard of living of a single-earner household of 50 years ago."
You are delusional if you really think so.
I think it depends on how you define "standard of living". If you don't pay for any technology invented in the past 50 years (drugs, cat scans, cable tv, cell phones, internet) and reduce your house to the square footage they had back 50 years ago, move to someplace semi-rural where you chopped your own wood and had a garden, then yes, you could approximate the standard of living 50 years ago on a single income. That doesn't mean the second person is not "working" though as now that second person is tending a garden, chopping wood, etc... but the idea that 50 years ago only one person "worked" is also simply not true. Sure, only one person worked outside the home but the other person still very much worked.
I don't know what kind of jobs you work in, but mine simply "don't work" at 10 hours a week. If you wait tables, or bag groceries, yeah, sure, your hours are fungible - anybody can do your job. My jobs (since graduating) have always involved working in teams - whether internal to the company or across multiple companies - where interdependence and communication would break down terribly if "key people" become unavailable for long periods of time.
Many fortune 500 companies have "job sharing" where 2 people share one job and each work 20 hours per week. It does require some communication but it does seem to work. More to the point though, if your whole team is working 3 days a week then the "key players" are still available the same time everyone else is. You do hint at another problem though. If I'm a software company that works 5 days/week, I can outbid any competitor that only works 3 days/week as I can promise to deliver quicker than my competitor with the shorter work week.
If you base it on what people already have, you essentially give them and incentive to spend everything they get to keep their wealth low so they get more basic income. If you base it on what people earn, you given them incentive to keep work less so they get more basic income. Even raising it to support children doesn't make sense because some people will exploit it by having a lot of children for the wrong reasons. I like the idea of basic income but I think it has to be a flat amount regardless of other factors. It's already a hard sell, particularly among the right and among the libertarians and even among moderates, so it has to be well thought-out in order to prevent abuse or it will never gain traction. IMO we're a long way off from being able to do something like that in the US.
The only way to do a basic income would be to give everyone a basic income of let's say $200/week then say the next $200/week is completely untaxed. If you did this then you might see a large number of people making minimum wage ($290/week) quit immediately but not all of them because although some people might be happy with $200/week without working, many more would also jump at the opportunity to double their income. Most people, even teenagers, like to work. They get bored sitting at home all day every day doing nothing especially if they are too broke to go do fun stuff. That's usually why most teenagers get their first job so they can pay for entertainment. What having a basic income would do though is make it so that workers now had more say. As they don't need a job, if the conditions get too horrible, they are able to quit and look for a better job without starving during the gap in employment.
A basic income would not really help the 40 hour / week problem though as most people make considerably more than $200 per week and still work 40 hours per week. The 40 hour per week problem is caused by the fact that it's easier to train one person to work 40 hours per week than it is to train 4 people to work 10 hours per week and as, again, most people don't mind working and have no problem exchanging time for money so they can buy more stuff, you are always going to find people willing to work 40 hours per week. The only way to reduce the 40 hours / week would be to mandate it. If the government required overtime at 35 hours then you would see hours/week drop. As a side effect, this could be used to easily manipulate unemployment. Reducing the work week by 5 hours per week would increase the number of available jobs as many jobs that require X number of hours to complete would all of a sudden need more employees to get the job done.
"Out of sight out of mind is the main goal of our supply chains." No, their main goal, the only one, is to make the biggest profit possible. And... people concerning themselves with ethics will pay a lot more for it, look at fashion for an example...
Yes, but both sides (ethical and unethical) want to make the biggest profit. Look at the recent beef labelling. The people buying beef from South America want to bring it to the US and put "processed in the USA" on it so that consumers are tricked into thinking it is in fact US grown beef. Whether you care where your cows grew up is irrelevant, the fact that companies intentionally try to mislead customers is very annoying. I get annoyed every time I see a package of marshmallows or salad dressing with a large "fat-free" label on the front. Yes, technically, marshmallows have no fat in them before you eat them but calling them fat-free is laughable as both sugar and fat are converted to fat once they reach your body. I could actually argue that sugar is actually more likely to be converted into fat by your body than fat is. Truth in advertising goes after blatant lies but it allows all kinds of intentionally misleading labels on packaging.
Does anyone *know* that these guys are operating from the U.S.?
Just based on available communication channels and lag times, I would assume that any real-time combat drones would need to be closer to the action. Automated drones that just have a camera feed and self-navigate via GPS could probably have operators stationed stateside but they aren't really being piloting at that point. To actually pilot a drone, not crash into obstacles, and hit moving targets is going to require lag times similar to what video games require and satellite and/or transcontinental cables are not going to be up to par.
Isn't that what the article mentioned? Devices connecting to your INTERNAL network? Of course you cannot do anything about stuff connecting to 4G and outside WAPs.
Yes, it does mention the network in the actual article but both the summary and the article start out worrying about the "always listening" devices which no amount of encryption or inspecting is going to help if they are connecting by one of many other methods not controlled by the company. Not to mention if it's end to end encryption then even if it is on your network then you can't inspect it only block it.
I don't get all of this, and frankly it's a little creepy.
From Barbies which upload everything your child says to a server, to XBox units which send everything in your living to Microsoft, to whatever the hell an Amazon Echo is... why the hell are people willing to accept something around them which is always listening, and always uploading everything you say to the internet?
Unfortunately the current voice recognition technology is not good/fast enough to run on low powered devices like barbies or even smart phones so companies have found a neat trick that uploads the audio clip to the cloud, have heavy duty cloud servers do the translation and then send the reply back to the device. We need major advances in voice recognition, battery life, mobile processor speed, or some other area to get around this. The other possibility is to not use voice recognition and/or pass laws restricting what can be done with the audio once it is uploaded but even if you do this, regardless, when you start carrying around devices with microphones in them then there is always the possibility that someone is able to record using it. Pretty much the only way to prevent this would be to have electronic frying devices at the entrance to secure buildings.
Obviously you have no clue of network security at your workplace and just allow people to plug in shit as they feel like it. You shall reap what you sow. There are a number of steps you can take to not let unauthorized devices on your company network.
You're assuming that it's connecting over the workplace network. What's to prevent it from connecting over the mobile network or just waiting until it has a network connection later at a new location? Preventing network access doesn't prevent a device from snooping. The only way to prevent it would be to ban all smartphones, smartwatches, fitbits, digital cameras, and electronic devices in general and it's only going to get worse as more electronics are incorporated into everyday objects like shoes, purses, credit cards, etc... They already sell a sdcard that has built in wifi and webserver. As the size and price of these type of devices continue to drop, you are going to see more and more everyday items include them possibly even without the user's knowledge.
Yes but what to answer to such a stupid question? "Dear Slashdot, how can I learn this advanced en-vogue field (that I'm completely new to and not really interested in) and make money fast?"
You're reading into the question stuff that wasn't said. I could have easily asked this question. I have a BS in Computer Science with a minor in Psychology. I worked with neural networks and genetic algorithms in High School and planned on going into AI (thus the minor in psych). Somewhere along the lines I got into backend web development and had a couple kids. I have now been out of the AI field for almost 20 years. I also would have a hard time quitting my day job because I have a family to support but would love to switch to that line of work. It wouldn't be for the money. I make good money now. It would be to have more interesting and cutting edge work. I would even be willing to take a paycut if it meant I could work with AI, drones, or robots. Don't assume that the OP is not really interested in the field or is just chasing the money.
Now when you lose your phone, instead of being out $500 and minor hassles, you're out all your bank accounts, your entire online existence and major hassles.
We're talking about email here. I already don't need a password to check email on my phone so if you steal my phone you get my email anyways. I don't see how this decreases security at all. You can argue that security on phones is too lax but this doesn't really make it any worse. I've never had my phone stolen but if I did, I would realize it in a matter of minutes and then would quickly need to change all my passwords anyways as my phone already has the keys to everything with or without this change.
It is simply political theater that there the 'big-business' and 'big-government' people are not one and the same.
I hope Sanders gets elected so it finishes collapsing sooner rather than later. The longer they prop it up - the farther it will fall.
So as you're obviously not a fan of Sanders, who would you vote for? Donald Trump is crazy. Bush/Clinton are more of the same. Rand Paul might be ok but doesn't have a chance. Sanders is also a career politician but seems to at least care. Yeah, he might bankrupt the country but at least it's better than the status quo and I would prefer us bankrupt the country by providing money to the poor than by spending it on million dollar weapons. At least when you give the money to the poor, than money is spent in the economy versus being blow up in smoke (literally). I've never voted democrat but I might just have to this year as I can't bring myself to vote for Trump or Bush and throwing my vote away on the libertarian ticket also seems like a waste unless by some miracle they get an exceptionally strong candidate.
As related to this topic, Sanders is probably the one candidate most likely to bring EE jobs back to the USA.
You do know humans live in space now, right? I think the point was that if you had asked anyone along time ago, say in the bc era, they would laugh at the notion of humans living in space. The same logic may follow for mars and today.
No, in the BC era they thought gods lived in space and had no concept of the vacuum of space. Even in the last hundred years, the idea that people lived on mars or venus seemed very plausible. It's only in the last 50 or so years that we've realized the actual challenges of living in space.
Really? And how is the human body going to survive on 38% of Earths gravity??? Idiotic. How are you going to build those "sealed buildings" and "greenhouses"? From material from the Home Depots on Mars?? Science fiction is fun to read, but it is FICTION. We cannot live on Mars. We have evoloved to live on Earth.
Is there any proof we can't survive on 38% gravity? Sure, coming back to earth after an extended stay would be problematic but your body would adjust just fine to weaker gravity and if you were never planning on leaving then this isn't a problem.
Raw materials are also not a problem. Again, there is no proof that mars doesn't have the same elements as earth.
Even radiation isn't a problem if you're ok living underground because admittedly your quality of life won't be much different underground on mars.
Which is probably the biggest problem with mars. Who wants to live there? Would you give up waterfalls, rivers, grass, outdoors forever? I've heard of people retiring to a cruise ship but even they get to leave the ship and breath fresh air. Even if we manage to wall off a few square miles, would you want to live in a 2 mile square with a bunch of other people and never be able to leave ever?
If we really want to colonize mars then step one is to send hundreds of robots and have them build cities, domes, pools, rivers, etc... before anyone arrives (kindof like what China is doing building cities where noone lives).
It's not easy to game. Really it's not, and the government is surprisingly good at spotting BS (eventually--you might be able to get away with it for a while, but definitely not forever).
If it's not easy to game then there should still be a 30% tax to hire h1b. H1b's are supposed to be a last resort option when there is a labor shortage. If you really have exhausted your options and can't find any local talent then a 30% "finders fee" paid to the government to help prevent future shortages shouldn't be a problem.
That salary might be low in some places and high in others. It might be low in one industry or high in another.
This.
H1-B jobs are supposed to be paid at the prevailing wage for the position and the industry it's in. We can be cynical about how some employers scoff at this and misuse H1-Bs, but the solution is to enforce the existing law, not break it with an unworkable across-the-board salary threshold.
The prevailing wage is not good enough because it can be gamed and also because foreign workers can be treated more harshly because they can't quit. A better solution would be pay the h1b holder the prevailing wage but then pay an additional 50% tax on their salary on top. I wouldn't be opposed to even a 100% tax. That money should then be donated to organizations that are able to train americans to do whatever job that apparently has no local talent (colleges, trade schools, etc.. depending on what industry the h1b1 is being granted in).
So the opposition to whaling is from people who don't want to kill whales per se.
So isn't all the griping here just a matter of people who never want sustainable whaling to resume.
My gripe is that they are using a "for science" cover story. If they want to sustainably harvest whales, then come out and say it and make their case. 333 out of 500k (less than 0.1%) is a pretty good case. By publically saying they are actually harvesting whales, they also make it harder for someone to kill endangered species "for science". I would much rather they allow Japan to legally harvest 1000 whales a year and get rid of the "for science" loophole.
So species such as Minke whales are able to fill the void the missing blue whales otherwise would, thus it's irrelevant that there are lots of them - you need a certain level of whale biomass to prevent problematic algae build up, and to help keep fish stocks healthy amongst other things. Hence, just because Minke whales are well populated doesn't make it okay to hunt them, it just means that as yet unrecovered populations of other previously over-hunted whale species will be coupled with reduced Minke populations and in turn will mean we end up with a level of whale biomass too small to perform it's task in the ecosystem to a suitable degree. This in turns leads to environmental problems and reduction of fish stocks.
I don't think it's completely irrelevant. If there is a huge number of minke whales then they are competing with the "actually endangered" species and thinning them out a little might actually help the other endangered whale species.
That being said, I think Japan's premise is laughable and an insult to the rest of the world. I would much rather them say "we believe that reducing the minke whale population will help other whale populations recover" or even "we believe there are plenty of minke whales and are going to harvest some just because". 333 whales out of 500k is not going to hurt the minke whale population but they shouldn't claim it is scientific research.
Don't reframe. If a billion peasants were screaming Deus Vult and stabbing Muslims, then your equivalence argument might have some weight- instead it's just a worthless apologetic so you can reframe it to a general attack on religions, or people who believe strongly in something. LOOK AROUND YOU
I am looking around. There are over 1 billion muslims. A large percentage of these are in India where they don't seem to cause much problems. The government has actually profiled violent muslim extremists and has found that a large percentage of the crazies are converts. Some of the converts have gone so far as bought "islam for dummies" books on their way to join the jihad. This isn't ideology gone crazy but rather more likely a "rebel looking for a cause". Yeah, there might be hotbeds like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan that somehow encourage violent extremism but it's still as a percentage is a very small percent of the total population of muslims. You can argue that percentage of violent christians or violent environmentalists is smaller and it probably is but that doesn't change the fact that the percentage of violent muslims is still fairly small and seem to be predominately people who are not immersed in the muslim culture but rather people on the fringe of the muslim culture.
You can't prove the Quran wrong; that's completely ridiculous. It's not a scientific text, it's a history book along with some mystical mumbo-jumbo and a bunch of philosophy. The mystical crap can't be disproven unless you can build a time machine, and you can't "disprove" a philosophy. The only thing you can do is try to convince people it's a bad philosophy. But philosophies basically are by-products of cultures and their ethoses, and you can't just force change on a culture. The only thing you can do is separate yourself from a culture you find distasteful.
I think there is something else you can do. There are over 1 billion muslims. I'm not sure what percentage are "extremists" but only a small percentage are "violent extremists". As I'm more familiar with the christian faith, I'm going to talk about it but I think the same basic premise probably applies. Most christians are not extremists. Most "christian extremists" do things like build churches in third world countries and/or pray in front of abortion clinics. A very small percentage of christian extremists end up as violent extremists that bomb abortion clinics, etc... The same argument can be made for "enviromental extremists", "political extremists", etc... As there are a lot more extremists than violent extremists, what causes one to become a violent extremist? I'm not sure it's that the violent extremists are "more extreme". Many non-violent extremists are willing to sacrifice their own livelihood and sometimes even lives in pursuit of their pet cause but very few are willing to harm other people (especially innocent people). We need to figure out what makes a person cross over where they are willing to blow up a whaling ship, attempt to assassinate the president, etc... If we can figure that out and find a way to prevent people from crossing over then we would be alot closer to solving all the random shootings, etc... that are happening around the world.
A good suicide method would be to give a reasonable dose, then let the patient self-administer in 1mg doses. Someone tolerant enough of it to keep dosing themselves deserves the right to keep administering, if they so choose.
That might work for someone who has a fully functional brain and is capable of movement but many times for the terminally ill at the very end, that's not the case. They might be brain dead, paralysed, non-responsive, mentally incompetent or one or more other reasons that they can't self-administer. Most people who would be aware enough and physically able enough to self-administer wouldn't actually want to commit suicide. I think the more common case are the people who can't self-administer or even express their wishes who are left to suffer.
Ever watch a Cancer patient die? I have. I listened to her cry, and whimper, and finally scream until she had to be sedated into unconsciousness with morphine and I mean a LOT of it.
I'm sorry you had to go through this, truly. It sounds like she needed to be given opiates much sooner than she was. There is no reason at all for anybody to go through that kind of suffering, except for the tooth-and-nails resistance of oncologists to get people into hospice before they start suffering like this.
Anybody with aging parents or an ill family member needs to educate themselves about hospice, and advocate fiercely for their loved ones.
I had a relative watch a friend die. They increased the drugs to the "maximum legal limit" and even tilted the bed to make it harder to breath so that the friend would die quicker. They then had to sit there and watch and keep hoping that each breath was their last. How is this and doing things like removing the feeding tube and letting someone starve to death "standard procedure"? It's cruel and unusual punishment. Even our criminals are treated better.
You're missing the point. Words are easier to remember.
Words might be easier to remember but their system is broken. They would be better off ordering the words alphabetically and mapping the first word to latitude and the second word to longitude and the third word to a checksum. Instead, what they have is dinosaurs.masks.established is in Minnesota while dinosaur.masks.established is in Missouri so being off by a single trailing 's' changes your location by hundreds of miles.
It isn't about wishing death on a pet. It's about the way life has worked for all of recorded history. Change it and there will be unintended side-effects.
> hopefully your human family members will live longer along with your pets.
That's spin to make it more palatable to mess with these animals in the lab. We stopped medical research on chimpanzees and now these guys are selling this new version.
Humane research has helped us end a lot more suffering than it has caused. Even some of the cruel research that Hitler did has saved more lives than it initially cost (I'm talking about just the research portion not his genocide). I'm not saying that causing a death now is ok if it saves 2 lives later but if the research is done humanely and ethically then it should be allowed. In this particular case, the types of experiments that are likely to be done will most likely cause very little if any pain and if the puppies are well cared for and then placed with good homes to live out their lives then how is this any different than someone raising normal puppies to sell.
Slashdot Mirror
decarbonization is a convenient side effect for those who don't want a warmer world.
The only way to not have an unbearably warmer world is to reduce our energy usage. If energy usage continues to grow at it's current rate, regardless of the technology used to generate it, earth's oceans will boil away in a few hundred years: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...
I think the human body is programmed for maximum reward with minimal effort. If you can trigger your brain's reward center by vicariously watching someone else play the game then you still get the reward without needing to put in any effort. Just like rats starve to death if given a button that stimulates their reward center as it's simpler and easier to push the button than it is to actually eat.
"That is also why today both parents work, even though they could enjoy the standard of living of a single-earner household of 50 years ago."
You are delusional if you really think so.
I think it depends on how you define "standard of living". If you don't pay for any technology invented in the past 50 years (drugs, cat scans, cable tv, cell phones, internet) and reduce your house to the square footage they had back 50 years ago, move to someplace semi-rural where you chopped your own wood and had a garden, then yes, you could approximate the standard of living 50 years ago on a single income. That doesn't mean the second person is not "working" though as now that second person is tending a garden, chopping wood, etc... but the idea that 50 years ago only one person "worked" is also simply not true. Sure, only one person worked outside the home but the other person still very much worked.
I don't know what kind of jobs you work in, but mine simply "don't work" at 10 hours a week. If you wait tables, or bag groceries, yeah, sure, your hours are fungible - anybody can do your job. My jobs (since graduating) have always involved working in teams - whether internal to the company or across multiple companies - where interdependence and communication would break down terribly if "key people" become unavailable for long periods of time.
Many fortune 500 companies have "job sharing" where 2 people share one job and each work 20 hours per week. It does require some communication but it does seem to work.
More to the point though, if your whole team is working 3 days a week then the "key players" are still available the same time everyone else is.
You do hint at another problem though. If I'm a software company that works 5 days/week, I can outbid any competitor that only works 3 days/week as I can promise to deliver quicker than my competitor with the shorter work week.
If you base it on what people already have, you essentially give them and incentive to spend everything they get to keep their wealth low so they get more basic income. If you base it on what people earn, you given them incentive to keep work less so they get more basic income. Even raising it to support children doesn't make sense because some people will exploit it by having a lot of children for the wrong reasons.
I like the idea of basic income but I think it has to be a flat amount regardless of other factors. It's already a hard sell, particularly among the right and among the libertarians and even among moderates, so it has to be well thought-out in order to prevent abuse or it will never gain traction. IMO we're a long way off from being able to do something like that in the US.
The only way to do a basic income would be to give everyone a basic income of let's say $200/week then say the next $200/week is completely untaxed. If you did this then you might see a large number of people making minimum wage ($290/week) quit immediately but not all of them because although some people might be happy with $200/week without working, many more would also jump at the opportunity to double their income. Most people, even teenagers, like to work. They get bored sitting at home all day every day doing nothing especially if they are too broke to go do fun stuff. That's usually why most teenagers get their first job so they can pay for entertainment. What having a basic income would do though is make it so that workers now had more say. As they don't need a job, if the conditions get too horrible, they are able to quit and look for a better job without starving during the gap in employment.
A basic income would not really help the 40 hour / week problem though as most people make considerably more than $200 per week and still work 40 hours per week. The 40 hour per week problem is caused by the fact that it's easier to train one person to work 40 hours per week than it is to train 4 people to work 10 hours per week and as, again, most people don't mind working and have no problem exchanging time for money so they can buy more stuff, you are always going to find people willing to work 40 hours per week. The only way to reduce the 40 hours / week would be to mandate it. If the government required overtime at 35 hours then you would see hours/week drop. As a side effect, this could be used to easily manipulate unemployment. Reducing the work week by 5 hours per week would increase the number of available jobs as many jobs that require X number of hours to complete would all of a sudden need more employees to get the job done.
"Out of sight out of mind is the main goal of our supply chains." ... people concerning themselves with ethics will pay a lot more for it, look at fashion for an example ...
No, their main goal, the only one, is to make the biggest profit possible. And
Yes, but both sides (ethical and unethical) want to make the biggest profit. Look at the recent beef labelling. The people buying beef from South America want to bring it to the US and put "processed in the USA" on it so that consumers are tricked into thinking it is in fact US grown beef. Whether you care where your cows grew up is irrelevant, the fact that companies intentionally try to mislead customers is very annoying. I get annoyed every time I see a package of marshmallows or salad dressing with a large "fat-free" label on the front. Yes, technically, marshmallows have no fat in them before you eat them but calling them fat-free is laughable as both sugar and fat are converted to fat once they reach your body. I could actually argue that sugar is actually more likely to be converted into fat by your body than fat is. Truth in advertising goes after blatant lies but it allows all kinds of intentionally misleading labels on packaging.
Does anyone *know* that these guys are operating from the U.S.?
Just based on available communication channels and lag times, I would assume that any real-time combat drones would need to be closer to the action. Automated drones that just have a camera feed and self-navigate via GPS could probably have operators stationed stateside but they aren't really being piloting at that point. To actually pilot a drone, not crash into obstacles, and hit moving targets is going to require lag times similar to what video games require and satellite and/or transcontinental cables are not going to be up to par.
Isn't that what the article mentioned? Devices connecting to your INTERNAL network? Of course you cannot do anything about stuff connecting to 4G and outside WAPs.
Yes, it does mention the network in the actual article but both the summary and the article start out worrying about the "always listening" devices which no amount of encryption or inspecting is going to help if they are connecting by one of many other methods not controlled by the company. Not to mention if it's end to end encryption then even if it is on your network then you can't inspect it only block it.
I don't get all of this, and frankly it's a little creepy.
From Barbies which upload everything your child says to a server, to XBox units which send everything in your living to Microsoft, to whatever the hell an Amazon Echo is ... why the hell are people willing to accept something around them which is always listening, and always uploading everything you say to the internet?
Unfortunately the current voice recognition technology is not good/fast enough to run on low powered devices like barbies or even smart phones so companies have found a neat trick that uploads the audio clip to the cloud, have heavy duty cloud servers do the translation and then send the reply back to the device. We need major advances in voice recognition, battery life, mobile processor speed, or some other area to get around this. The other possibility is to not use voice recognition and/or pass laws restricting what can be done with the audio once it is uploaded but even if you do this, regardless, when you start carrying around devices with microphones in them then there is always the possibility that someone is able to record using it. Pretty much the only way to prevent this would be to have electronic frying devices at the entrance to secure buildings.
Obviously you have no clue of network security at your workplace and just allow people to plug in shit as they feel like it. You shall reap what you sow. There are a number of steps you can take to not let unauthorized devices on your company network.
You're assuming that it's connecting over the workplace network. What's to prevent it from connecting over the mobile network or just waiting until it has a network connection later at a new location? Preventing network access doesn't prevent a device from snooping. The only way to prevent it would be to ban all smartphones, smartwatches, fitbits, digital cameras, and electronic devices in general and it's only going to get worse as more electronics are incorporated into everyday objects like shoes, purses, credit cards, etc... They already sell a sdcard that has built in wifi and webserver. As the size and price of these type of devices continue to drop, you are going to see more and more everyday items include them possibly even without the user's knowledge.
Yes but what to answer to such a stupid question? "Dear Slashdot, how can I learn this advanced en-vogue field (that I'm completely new to and not really interested in) and make money fast?"
You're reading into the question stuff that wasn't said. I could have easily asked this question. I have a BS in Computer Science with a minor in Psychology. I worked with neural networks and genetic algorithms in High School and planned on going into AI (thus the minor in psych). Somewhere along the lines I got into backend web development and had a couple kids. I have now been out of the AI field for almost 20 years. I also would have a hard time quitting my day job because I have a family to support but would love to switch to that line of work. It wouldn't be for the money. I make good money now. It would be to have more interesting and cutting edge work. I would even be willing to take a paycut if it meant I could work with AI, drones, or robots. Don't assume that the OP is not really interested in the field or is just chasing the money.
Now when you lose your phone, instead of being out $500 and minor hassles, you're out all your bank accounts, your entire online existence and major hassles.
We're talking about email here. I already don't need a password to check email on my phone so if you steal my phone you get my email anyways. I don't see how this decreases security at all. You can argue that security on phones is too lax but this doesn't really make it any worse. I've never had my phone stolen but if I did, I would realize it in a matter of minutes and then would quickly need to change all my passwords anyways as my phone already has the keys to everything with or without this change.
It is simply political theater that there the 'big-business' and 'big-government' people are not one and the same.
I hope Sanders gets elected so it finishes collapsing sooner rather than later. The longer they prop it up - the farther it will fall.
So as you're obviously not a fan of Sanders, who would you vote for? Donald Trump is crazy. Bush/Clinton are more of the same. Rand Paul might be ok but doesn't have a chance. Sanders is also a career politician but seems to at least care. Yeah, he might bankrupt the country but at least it's better than the status quo and I would prefer us bankrupt the country by providing money to the poor than by spending it on million dollar weapons. At least when you give the money to the poor, than money is spent in the economy versus being blow up in smoke (literally). I've never voted democrat but I might just have to this year as I can't bring myself to vote for Trump or Bush and throwing my vote away on the libertarian ticket also seems like a waste unless by some miracle they get an exceptionally strong candidate.
As related to this topic, Sanders is probably the one candidate most likely to bring EE jobs back to the USA.
You do know humans live in space now, right? I think the point was that if you had asked anyone along time ago, say in the bc era, they would laugh at the notion of humans living in space. The same logic may follow for mars and today.
No, in the BC era they thought gods lived in space and had no concept of the vacuum of space. Even in the last hundred years, the idea that people lived on mars or venus seemed very plausible. It's only in the last 50 or so years that we've realized the actual challenges of living in space.
Really? And how is the human body going to survive on 38% of Earths gravity??? Idiotic. How are you going to build those "sealed buildings" and "greenhouses"? From material from the Home Depots on Mars?? Science fiction is fun to read, but it is FICTION. We cannot live on Mars. We have evoloved to live on Earth.
Is there any proof we can't survive on 38% gravity? Sure, coming back to earth after an extended stay would be problematic but your body would adjust just fine to weaker gravity and if you were never planning on leaving then this isn't a problem.
Raw materials are also not a problem. Again, there is no proof that mars doesn't have the same elements as earth.
Even radiation isn't a problem if you're ok living underground because admittedly your quality of life won't be much different underground on mars.
Which is probably the biggest problem with mars. Who wants to live there? Would you give up waterfalls, rivers, grass, outdoors forever?
I've heard of people retiring to a cruise ship but even they get to leave the ship and breath fresh air.
Even if we manage to wall off a few square miles, would you want to live in a 2 mile square with a bunch of other people and never be able to leave ever?
If we really want to colonize mars then step one is to send hundreds of robots and have them build cities, domes, pools, rivers, etc... before anyone arrives (kindof like what China is doing building cities where noone lives).
Silicon Valley-based SoftE hiring manager here.
It's not easy to game. Really it's not, and the government is surprisingly good at spotting BS (eventually--you might be able to get away with it for a while, but definitely not forever).
If it's not easy to game then there should still be a 30% tax to hire h1b. H1b's are supposed to be a last resort option when there is a labor shortage. If you really have exhausted your options and can't find any local talent then a 30% "finders fee" paid to the government to help prevent future shortages shouldn't be a problem.
That salary might be low in some places and high in others. It might be low in one industry or high in another.
This.
H1-B jobs are supposed to be paid at the prevailing wage for the position and the industry it's in. We can be cynical about how some employers scoff at this and misuse H1-Bs, but the solution is to enforce the existing law, not break it with an unworkable across-the-board salary threshold.
The prevailing wage is not good enough because it can be gamed and also because foreign workers can be treated more harshly because they can't quit. A better solution would be pay the h1b holder the prevailing wage but then pay an additional 50% tax on their salary on top. I wouldn't be opposed to even a 100% tax. That money should then be donated to organizations that are able to train americans to do whatever job that apparently has no local talent (colleges, trade schools, etc.. depending on what industry the h1b1 is being granted in).
So the opposition to whaling is from people who don't want to kill whales per se.
So isn't all the griping here just a matter of people who never want sustainable whaling to resume.
My gripe is that they are using a "for science" cover story. If they want to sustainably harvest whales, then come out and say it and make their case. 333 out of 500k (less than 0.1%) is a pretty good case. By publically saying they are actually harvesting whales, they also make it harder for someone to kill endangered species "for science". I would much rather they allow Japan to legally harvest 1000 whales a year and get rid of the "for science" loophole.
So species such as Minke whales are able to fill the void the missing blue whales otherwise would, thus it's irrelevant that there are lots of them - you need a certain level of whale biomass to prevent problematic algae build up, and to help keep fish stocks healthy amongst other things. Hence, just because Minke whales are well populated doesn't make it okay to hunt them, it just means that as yet unrecovered populations of other previously over-hunted whale species will be coupled with reduced Minke populations and in turn will mean we end up with a level of whale biomass too small to perform it's task in the ecosystem to a suitable degree. This in turns leads to environmental problems and reduction of fish stocks.
I don't think it's completely irrelevant. If there is a huge number of minke whales then they are competing with the "actually endangered" species and thinning them out a little might actually help the other endangered whale species.
That being said, I think Japan's premise is laughable and an insult to the rest of the world. I would much rather them say "we believe that reducing the minke whale population will help other whale populations recover" or even "we believe there are plenty of minke whales and are going to harvest some just because". 333 whales out of 500k is not going to hurt the minke whale population but they shouldn't claim it is scientific research.
Don't reframe. If a billion peasants were screaming Deus Vult and stabbing Muslims, then your equivalence argument might have some weight- instead it's just a worthless apologetic so you can reframe it to a general attack on religions, or people who believe strongly in something. LOOK AROUND YOU
I am looking around. There are over 1 billion muslims. A large percentage of these are in India where they don't seem to cause much problems. The government has actually profiled violent muslim extremists and has found that a large percentage of the crazies are converts. Some of the converts have gone so far as bought "islam for dummies" books on their way to join the jihad. This isn't ideology gone crazy but rather more likely a "rebel looking for a cause". Yeah, there might be hotbeds like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan that somehow encourage violent extremism but it's still as a percentage is a very small percent of the total population of muslims. You can argue that percentage of violent christians or violent environmentalists is smaller and it probably is but that doesn't change the fact that the percentage of violent muslims is still fairly small and seem to be predominately people who are not immersed in the muslim culture but rather people on the fringe of the muslim culture.
You can't prove the Quran wrong; that's completely ridiculous. It's not a scientific text, it's a history book along with some mystical mumbo-jumbo and a bunch of philosophy. The mystical crap can't be disproven unless you can build a time machine, and you can't "disprove" a philosophy. The only thing you can do is try to convince people it's a bad philosophy. But philosophies basically are by-products of cultures and their ethoses, and you can't just force change on a culture. The only thing you can do is separate yourself from a culture you find distasteful.
I think there is something else you can do. There are over 1 billion muslims. I'm not sure what percentage are "extremists" but only a small percentage are "violent extremists". As I'm more familiar with the christian faith, I'm going to talk about it but I think the same basic premise probably applies. Most christians are not extremists. Most "christian extremists" do things like build churches in third world countries and/or pray in front of abortion clinics. A very small percentage of christian extremists end up as violent extremists that bomb abortion clinics, etc... The same argument can be made for "enviromental extremists", "political extremists", etc... As there are a lot more extremists than violent extremists, what causes one to become a violent extremist? I'm not sure it's that the violent extremists are "more extreme". Many non-violent extremists are willing to sacrifice their own livelihood and sometimes even lives in pursuit of their pet cause but very few are willing to harm other people (especially innocent people). We need to figure out what makes a person cross over where they are willing to blow up a whaling ship, attempt to assassinate the president, etc... If we can figure that out and find a way to prevent people from crossing over then we would be alot closer to solving all the random shootings, etc... that are happening around the world.
A good suicide method would be to give a reasonable dose, then let the patient self-administer in 1mg doses. Someone tolerant enough of it to keep dosing themselves deserves the right to keep administering, if they so choose.
That might work for someone who has a fully functional brain and is capable of movement but many times for the terminally ill at the very end, that's not the case. They might be brain dead, paralysed, non-responsive, mentally incompetent or one or more other reasons that they can't self-administer. Most people who would be aware enough and physically able enough to self-administer wouldn't actually want to commit suicide. I think the more common case are the people who can't self-administer or even express their wishes who are left to suffer.
Ever watch a Cancer patient die?
I have. I listened to her cry, and whimper, and finally scream until she had to be sedated into unconsciousness with morphine and I mean a LOT of it.
I'm sorry you had to go through this, truly. It sounds like she needed to be given opiates much sooner than she was. There is no reason at all for anybody to go through that kind of suffering, except for the tooth-and-nails resistance of oncologists to get people into hospice before they start suffering like this.
Anybody with aging parents or an ill family member needs to educate themselves about hospice, and advocate fiercely for their loved ones.
I had a relative watch a friend die. They increased the drugs to the "maximum legal limit" and even tilted the bed to make it harder to breath so that the friend would die quicker. They then had to sit there and watch and keep hoping that each breath was their last. How is this and doing things like removing the feeding tube and letting someone starve to death "standard procedure"? It's cruel and unusual punishment. Even our criminals are treated better.
You're missing the point. Words are easier to remember.
Words might be easier to remember but their system is broken. They would be better off ordering the words alphabetically and mapping the first word to latitude and the second word to longitude and the third word to a checksum. Instead, what they have is dinosaurs.masks.established is in Minnesota while dinosaur.masks.established is in Missouri so being off by a single trailing 's' changes your location by hundreds of miles.
It isn't about wishing death on a pet. It's about the way life has worked for all of recorded history. Change it and there will be unintended side-effects.
> hopefully your human family members will live longer along with your pets.
That's spin to make it more palatable to mess with these animals in the lab. We stopped medical research on chimpanzees and now these guys are selling this new version.
Humane research has helped us end a lot more suffering than it has caused. Even some of the cruel research that Hitler did has saved more lives than it initially cost (I'm talking about just the research portion not his genocide). I'm not saying that causing a death now is ok if it saves 2 lives later but if the research is done humanely and ethically then it should be allowed. In this particular case, the types of experiments that are likely to be done will most likely cause very little if any pain and if the puppies are well cared for and then placed with good homes to live out their lives then how is this any different than someone raising normal puppies to sell.