Seems like the problems in the examples you give are based on humans being bad drivers and are the cause of accidents now. The last example you give also depends on the computer acting like a person in the first place. A computer would always assume the car in front could stop at any time and thus will always follow at a safe distance. There's no need to pump the brakes (slow down) because unlike a person, the computer won't be following too close to begin with.
It's a stretch to call experimenting with driver-less cars on public roads experimenting on people. Any experiment that could affect the lives of others could fall under such a loose meaning. Does experimentation on viruses require the consent of everyone on the planet because they could possibly be affected if things go wrong? Should we have not ever attempted to launch anything into space without the unanimous consent of the planet? Do you think all drivers on the road should have to consent before allowing an experimental human driver (ie student driver) on the road?
I suppose as long as you announce that you are doing it ahead of time you could argue that people are giving consent by choosing to drive on that road or not. At any rate I would worry more about the hundreds/thousands of texting teens, drunken drivers and distracted drivers than one experimental robot. I also seriously doubt there wasn't testing before hand on closed roads or that there weren't any safety precautions. If nothing else safety precautions help protect investment in the vehicle itself.
genjix made a comment about the past and throttling unlimited data plans over dial-up on a phone network that completely relates to the article about throttling unlimited data plans over 3g on a phone network. I'm not sure the point you're making.
At work I install Firefox on people's machines all the time without administrator access (windows xp). It just installs under the user instead of program files.
To be fair this highlights the difference between value of software vs value of human labor. The GPL has to do with one and not the other. Would anything be different with another license? It's a limit of jurisdiction.
That would require the government to only spend 6-11% of GDP. We're a long way away from that. Government spending The 90's were in the right direction but still way off.
I don't think it's that simple. I doubt the numbers are so comparable as 278k to create 40k worth of a job. For Instance according to some quick Google searches GE's total revenue in 2010 was 150 billion. They employ ~300,000 people. Taking 150,000,000,000 divided by 300,000 yields a ratio of $500,000 to 1 job. There's more to it than money spent (tax payer or consumer) = x number of jobs. Don't get me wrong I would rather see money move around on it's own in the private sector but that doesn't seem to be happening.
The U.S. wouldn't need to. On the flip side, NK is certainly not invading the U.S. anytime soon. Nor is any other country for the matter. The U.S. has 'more guns' for all intents and purposes in any context. The U.S. is in three engagements and has troops stationed in nearly every country in the World. Its Navy spans the globe. All with a volunteer military.
The United States is so well armed that in a debate about the validity of the statement 'Because the U.S. has more guns', 200 million guns shouldn't be counted (an order of magnitude larger than the largest army including actives and reserves). Nor are we supposed to count how much more well armed the U.S. military is. So the argument is basically the U.S. doesn't have the most soldiers. Ok but the U.S. still has more guns
The original post was that the U.S. could do it because it has more guns. The response was a pedantic nope that the U.S. does not have more guns it just uses its guns. The original post was a might is right sarcastic statement. The reply was pedantic and wrong.
In context the U.S. has more might with any measure. If we are going to go redefine what the context is that's fine. If we are talking about active standing troops the US is not #1, but that's not what was originally said. If we're talking about number of tanks I don't think the U.S. has the most, but as far as I know they are the best at firing on the move. If we're talking about 'guns', the U.S. has an abundance and may be #1. If we're talking about number of citizens the U.S. is not #1.
The U.S. spends 46% of the world's military budget. This does not take into account Iraq and
Afghanistan. The U.S. is expanding it's unmanned firepower and is the largest exporter of arms (9 or last 10 years). I have supported the original post, 'Because the U.S. has more guns'.
So while 200 million domestic guns have nothing to do with foreign policy. How does 9 million North Korean troops sitting in N Korea prove N Korea has more guns than the U.S.? The U.S. is not invincible but it does have 'more guns'.
Nope. You tried to be smart about the U.S. not having more guns and it turns out you meant active troops. Oh we're talking about foreign policy? How many Russian and Chinese troops are deployed in combat around the world currently? Wait, what were you saying 'nope' to again?
Then it's not a human idea, and probably wasn't expressed in the original language.
How did you come to this conclusion? Languages have grown, changed and splintered over time often as a direct result of growing, changing and splintering human ideas. If anything I would think ideas would be the hardest thing to express correctly across different languages.
which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested
Let's all hope they don't rule that you have a right to record the police with the stipulation that you have to be obvious about it.
Your not one of us? I've always wanted to ask 'how many fingers do you have?' and 'what base system do you 'naturally' count in?' We have 10 fingers and tend to count in base-10.
I agree with you. Formal education is great for some and terrible for others. I don't agree that being against formal education is any more anti-intellectual than being for it is intellectual. To each his own. My sister excelled at formal education and has a PHD, I'm terrible at it and always struggled through school. I received a D in Algebra II in high school. When I graduated my teacher actually apologized saying I knew the material better than she did. I told her not to apologize since I hardly ever did any of my homework. Most people who know us consider both my sister and I intellectuals.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't aware you could do any of that through Facebook. I'm thinking we should just ban Facebook altogether if it's that dangerous.
Seems like the problems in the examples you give are based on humans being bad drivers and are the cause of accidents now. The last example you give also depends on the computer acting like a person in the first place. A computer would always assume the car in front could stop at any time and thus will always follow at a safe distance. There's no need to pump the brakes (slow down) because unlike a person, the computer won't be following too close to begin with.
The fact that large numbers of people are self-centered, greedy, and stupid is no reason to stop the progression of technology.
I agree but it does tend to slow things down. Oh well, at least nothing has stopped the progression of technology so far.
It's a stretch to call experimenting with driver-less cars on public roads experimenting on people. Any experiment that could affect the lives of others could fall under such a loose meaning. Does experimentation on viruses require the consent of everyone on the planet because they could possibly be affected if things go wrong? Should we have not ever attempted to launch anything into space without the unanimous consent of the planet? Do you think all drivers on the road should have to consent before allowing an experimental human driver (ie student driver) on the road?
I suppose as long as you announce that you are doing it ahead of time you could argue that people are giving consent by choosing to drive on that road or not. At any rate I would worry more about the hundreds/thousands of texting teens, drunken drivers and distracted drivers than one experimental robot. I also seriously doubt there wasn't testing before hand on closed roads or that there weren't any safety precautions. If nothing else safety precautions help protect investment in the vehicle itself.
Reminds me of N. Korea ranking themselves as #2 in the world for happiness.
I disagree about several of your points. However, I'm on board with a simplified tax code and term limits. We gotta start somewhere ;)
genjix made a comment about the past and throttling unlimited data plans over dial-up on a phone network that completely relates to the article about throttling unlimited data plans over 3g on a phone network. I'm not sure the point you're making.
flash won't install for it though.
At work I install Firefox on people's machines all the time without administrator access (windows xp). It just installs under the user instead of program files.
To be fair this highlights the difference between value of software vs value of human labor. The GPL has to do with one and not the other. Would anything be different with another license? It's a limit of jurisdiction.
Why would they care what your real name is?
That would require the government to only spend 6-11% of GDP. We're a long way away from that. Government spending The 90's were in the right direction but still way off.
I don't think it's that simple. I doubt the numbers are so comparable as 278k to create 40k worth of a job. For Instance according to some quick Google searches GE's total revenue in 2010 was 150 billion. They employ ~300,000 people. Taking 150,000,000,000 divided by 300,000 yields a ratio of $500,000 to 1 job. There's more to it than money spent (tax payer or consumer) = x number of jobs. Don't get me wrong I would rather see money move around on it's own in the private sector but that doesn't seem to be happening.
Phillips didn't ask to withdraw drm cds. You just can't use the CD logo. So you can you sell an HDMI->whatever cable and just not use the HDMI logo?
The U.S. wouldn't need to. On the flip side, NK is certainly not invading the U.S. anytime soon. Nor is any other country for the matter. The U.S. has 'more guns' for all intents and purposes in any context. The U.S. is in three engagements and has troops stationed in nearly every country in the World. Its Navy spans the globe. All with a volunteer military.
The United States is so well armed that in a debate about the validity of the statement 'Because the U.S. has more guns', 200 million guns shouldn't be counted (an order of magnitude larger than the largest army including actives and reserves). Nor are we supposed to count how much more well armed the U.S. military is. So the argument is basically the U.S. doesn't have the most soldiers. Ok but the U.S. still has more guns
Happy Birthday America Fuck Yeah!
The original post was that the U.S. could do it because it has more guns. The response was a pedantic nope that the U.S. does not have more guns it just uses its guns. The original post was a might is right sarcastic statement. The reply was pedantic and wrong.
In context the U.S. has more might with any measure. If we are going to go redefine what the context is that's fine. If we are talking about active standing troops the US is not #1, but that's not what was originally said. If we're talking about number of tanks I don't think the U.S. has the most, but as far as I know they are the best at firing on the move. If we're talking about 'guns', the U.S. has an abundance and may be #1. If we're talking about number of citizens the U.S. is not #1.
The U.S. spends 46% of the world's military budget. This does not take into account Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. is expanding it's unmanned firepower and is the largest exporter of arms (9 or last 10 years). I have supported the original post, 'Because the U.S. has more guns'.
So while 200 million domestic guns have nothing to do with foreign policy. How does 9 million North Korean troops sitting in N Korea prove N Korea has more guns than the U.S.? The U.S. is not invincible but it does have 'more guns'.
Nope. You tried to be smart about the U.S. not having more guns and it turns out you meant active troops. Oh we're talking about foreign policy? How many Russian and Chinese troops are deployed in combat around the world currently? Wait, what were you saying 'nope' to again?
There are estimated to be over 200 million guns in the U.S. Not counting military and police. America is armed to the teeth.
What are you saying 'nope' to?
I need a car analogy
With the exact same meaning of course.
Then it's not a human idea, and probably wasn't expressed in the original language.
How did you come to this conclusion? Languages have grown, changed and splintered over time often as a direct result of growing, changing and splintering human ideas. If anything I would think ideas would be the hardest thing to express correctly across different languages.
which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested
Let's all hope they don't rule that you have a right to record the police with the stipulation that you have to be obvious about it.
Sort it out your own selves.
Your not one of us? I've always wanted to ask 'how many fingers do you have?' and 'what base system do you 'naturally' count in?' We have 10 fingers and tend to count in base-10.
I agree with you. Formal education is great for some and terrible for others. I don't agree that being against formal education is any more anti-intellectual than being for it is intellectual. To each his own. My sister excelled at formal education and has a PHD, I'm terrible at it and always struggled through school. I received a D in Algebra II in high school. When I graduated my teacher actually apologized saying I knew the material better than she did. I told her not to apologize since I hardly ever did any of my homework. Most people who know us consider both my sister and I intellectuals.