I was 100 percent with you, until you posted that.
We've been trying the concept of the path to wealth is via having as many people as possible as poor as possible here since the early 1980s. It always looks like a good idea until they come for your wealth.
I'll help you analyses the sentence since you seem unable to.
If however you can not be productive due to your drug addiction and must use welfare because you can't keep a job you don't deserve welfare.
The person has to be an addict, unable to be a productive member of society because of that addiction, uses welfare because they can't keep a job due to their addiction, if they meet all those criteria then they don't deserve welfare.
So you are saying if the addiction is not the cause of their inability to be a productive member of society, you are okay with them being an addict? What if, say they are an untreated bipolar person?
No need to lecture me on parsing sentences when it is you who are having difficulties putting them together.
Most people brains shut off when the greed center in their brain is triggered.
Its the old confidence man thing.
And for the silliest things. Here's an example.
Old Toyota RV's. These were made from the late 70's to the early 90's. But they have become popular in recent years. I have a mid-80's version.
But people have become so enamored of the things that Craigslist and eBay get scammers regularly. With crazy stuff like telling the marks that the Mini-RV is wrapped in plastic in storage at an airport warehouse, or ripped off photos of other people's RV's posing as the scammer's own. With the owner of the RV warning the marks that it is a scam. The marks do not care.
Belonging to a group involved with the Toyhomes, you can see the greed and scamming at work.
I'd seen dozens of people ripped off, flying to another state with the intention of buying the RV and driving it back. And if you try to talk people out of it, you'll get attacked for it by other people who are future marks, and what can only be some of the scammers.
Then after being taken to the cleaners, the marks come back and moan about it. But there have been a few who have a greed center so strong they have been scammed more than once.
I'm just waiting for the first time that the inability to make a 911 call quickly from one of these shows (heart attack, stroke, active shooter, etc.) results in someone's unnecessary death. After one lawsuit erases the benefits of the entire tour, the insurance companies will start levying huge surcharges for any shows that ban cellphones, and all this nonsense will take care of itself.
If you have to be prepared for th eworst possible thing happening, consider that yout heart attack stroke might occur in the moiddle of teh throng of peopel.l, so that's pretty fucking irresponsible isn't it. They might die before you can get them outside.
Better to camp out inside the emergency ward if we take that approach. Otherwise you can make up thousands of scenarios, such as the companies that produce traffic lights, all of the companies that let out during rush hour. Anything - any condition that makes for an uneeded death because of inconvenience.
Make sure someone can listen and watch you screw, because you know hw many heart attacks happen then? Oh, and in public restroom stalls. Emergency responders told me that's a big one.
I go to a lot of concerts but I find smart phone users during the show very obnoxious.
I do not do music performances, but when I'm giving a presentation - which I do quite often, and someone's phone rings I stop and tell them we'll resume when they are finished.
That seems to stop the problem pretty quickly. I've never stopped a presentation twice. It's amusing to see everyone turning off their phones.
Also, charging below the maximum that could potentially be extracted from the market obviously can't be a rational move. Nope, scalpers are the only rational actors involved.
I liken it to the case of Martin Shkreli of Turing Pharmaceuticals infamy, who after buying the firm, raised the price of the drug Daraprim by over 5000 percent from around 13 dollars to 750 dollars per dose.
He's since been arrested for other money shennnagins like securities fraud.
Now yes, if you are a person who is going to die without Daraprim, you'll probably pay the man. But at some point it becomes indistinguishable from blackmail. In addition, with one group extracting all of your income, you do not have money to spend with other groups.
That's why I
say that the free market must be protected from itself. That's why I say that the free market will kill people if given the chance. Certainly if I had to take that drug every day, I would at 13.50 a dose, but would just let nature take it's course and die at 750.00 a day. I have no plans to give my estate to the good Mr Shkreli.
And while going to concerts or football games isn't a life and death matter, it does serve as an illustration of what happens when a group goes for maximum pecuniary extraction. It's a predatory thing. Middleman ticket services don't care if they put a venue out of business. There are plenty more places (yet) As long as Midleman Ticket Services makes their money - and make no mistake - the costs of maintaining a venue, paying the bills for it and procuring the entertainment is a little more than having a computer and buying up all of the tickets when they go on sale.
The only free market solution for the venues is to hike the prices to the maximum amount that people will pay as they sell them. That way the professional scalpers won't sell any of their scalped tickets.
Then again, the venues seem to understand that happy people who don't feel they are being fleeced tend to spend even more money once inside the venue.
They aren't priced at "what the market will bear" but are priced at "what the market will pay" -- there is a difference. Market-clearing price and all that...
Looking at a homogenous sort of "What the market will pay" is a real loser. Because not everyone is going to have the same level of where they cut off. That inevitably leads to less attendance. Now if I have to pay 90 dollars a ticket, I'll think long and hard about what I will go to.
An example - I used to travel to my favorite Hockey team's games many times a year. As the prices increased, I started to go to less and less. At first I spent around the same price on tickets in total. So a while back I might have gone to 10 games, then it went to 5, then to 2, and then I just got out of the habit.
And as I started going to fewer games, I bought less and less food and promotional items. Now its zero.
Less money for them, more for me.
Another example that doesn't employ middlemen taking tickets is when the local university tried a tactic that they used for football and applied it to the BBall team. For the football team, a huge portion of the tickets are bought by corporations that then hand them out to visitors as a promo when they visit the corporations.
So they tried it with the Basketball team. Didn't work at all because even when the corporations gave tickets away, so many games were in the middle of the week that the recipients didn't bother to drive to them. The results? 3/4 empty arena - because no one could buy the tickets the corporate customers bought, and 3/4 empty arenas don't translate into concession sales. Concession sales, by the way, make a metric shitload of money. Money thatwhen you don't make it, you lose money overall. Amazingly enough, the wome's team had more attendance than the mens, and made more money. Point is, attendance is important, and if some one or group makes ticket prices at the maximum th market will pay, the market won't pay any more, and other profit making items will not be sold.
And since locals couldn't get tickets, they lost interest, and then the students lost interest, and they stayed away.
Looking at this as a pure free market exercise fails, as that particular solution does not take all of the extractable money into account. It doesn't look a penny past the ticket sales and what a middleman can make from them.
The one big thing here no one is mentioning so far: how do the scalpers have a market? If people are willing to pay "many times over face value" then the scalpers are just recognizing what the market will bear.
Probably because it pisses people off to hell and back. I see a high speed stock situation happening. where scalpers sell to scalpers who then sell to more scalpers and then its scalpers all the way down.
If your free market example is to be adhered to religiously, a whole shitload of people hwo do nothing but buy and resell will make money, but the venue will suffer. After all, the only way to find out what the market will bear is to exceed what it will bear. And everyone has a different max price they will pay.
And as for pissing people off, our university had a number of new seats to offer,at the fBll stadium. people lined up, and no one in line got a ticket - they sold out in something like 24 seconds to the first group online. Damn near a riot ensued.
The completely free market will kill people if there is a profit in it - much better to not piss off the very people yu are trying to get to go to your venue.
"wireless signals needs to be 10 to 100 times faster and be far more responsive to allow advanced technologies like virtual surgery"
Can I pre-emptively opt-out of remote wireless surgery on my medical records please!
Greeting and salutations, Citizen of the world! Please to send 150 bitcoin to this address, and we will make certain your wireless operation goes well. You never know what could happen when you don't take precautions like paying us 150 bitcoin!
As well, we reset your password, but good news! It is only 5 bitcoin to tell you what the new one is.
Wrong - Atheism is lack of belief in a God. That is a critical distinction.
Wrong. What you described is Agnosticism.
Wrong, an agnostic, according to Merriam Webster, is:
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
That is what the agnostic person believes. Their "view, as defined in the dictionary.
An atheist believes that a God does not exist. Also from Merriam Webster.
Which is the same thing as a lack of belief in a God.
Because to take your view, an atheist would have to believe in a God to not believe in.
You know, you make the assumption that the reason the person on welfare is on welfare is because of their drug addiction. By the way, wealthy people also burn out while using drugs, its just that it is easier to hide.
Where did I make that assumption? If you didn't quote what I wrote I would think you are responding to the wrong person. Just reread my comment below.
If however you can not be productive due to your drug addiction and must use welfare because you can't keep a job you don't deserve welfare.
Umm. lessee here you wrote: If however you can not be productive due to your drug addiction and must use welfare because you can't keep a job you don't deserve welfare
The nature of insurance just changes, from covering individual drivers to insuring manufacturers and fleet operators for product liability. The biggest impact will be on the legal profession: a whole army of bottom feeders will disappear, to be replaced with smaller additions to corporate lawyer ranks. A whole genre of late-night TV advertising will be replaced by ads for body mods, escort services and medical tourism services.
I suspect that individuals insurance will just shift to ransomware or drive by hack attacks.
What tI am curious about is the kidnapping angle. Hacked car takes wealthy dude direct to wherever they hold him. Probably need kidnap insurance as well.
Going off topic here, but imagine the possibilities. If there is a warrant out for you, or the police want to interrogate you, they can just use their backdoor and drive you right to the station. no need for messy arrests or other unpleasantness. As soon as your vehicle of interest starts in motion, you are theirs.
Point is: such cars will most likely never make decisions between 2 targets;
Most likely never doesn't mean never. And it is true that sometimes decisions have to be made. A drunk biker played chicken with me one evening a long time ago. I had to decide whether to make a high speed exit, which ended up with me wrecking my car and putting my passengers in danger. As it turned out, I made what was probably the wrong decision, My car did a rollover. Fortunately, no one of my three passengers was hurt. But I have always wondered what I would do if the situation occured again. It surely would have killed the biker if I didn't move, but a near miracle that no one in my car was killed or even hurt.
Point is, ethical decisions will have to be made, they are made now, and they cannot be avoided. So it will only be a matter of time before an autonomous car quite deliberately kills someone.
It will be interesting to see what the autonomous vehicle would do if it found itself in my shoes. Would it determine that the oncoming vehicle only had one person and just do a header into it? Maybe. Altogether too many proponents of AVs refuse to even speculate.
I read that article but no-where does it blame men.
Are you serious? Male dominated "culture" must change or else women will not enter the culture. As Thinkprogress.org states:
"There is also persistent discrimination against women who enter the science and math fields. CTI’s study found that almost a third of “senior leaders” in STEM fields think a woman would never be able to reach top jobs at their organizations. A part of this surely comes from a general societal bias against women in those fields. Previous research has shown that even STEM professors doubt the ability of their female students. Biases against women in STEM start when they’re young girls and can become so ingrained as to actually make the girls worse at the subject.http://thinkprogress.org/econo...
So anyhow - who is doing this discrimination -the Flying Burrito Pug?
As well, they are far more likely to get into STEM if the classrooms do not have male type art on the wall:
Over and over, Dr. Cheryan and her colleagues have found that female students are more interested in enrolling in a computer class if they are shown a classroom (whether virtual or real) decorated not with “Star Wars” posters, science-fiction books, computer parts and tech magazines, but with a more neutral décor — art and nature posters, coffee makers, plants and general-interest magazines.
So men need to stop putting things that offend women on the walls. A Star Wars poster can keep them out of tech.?!?!
As well, the Barbie in a T-shirt and jeans might j8ust backfireon Mattel because yup, you guessed it, a person in jeans can apparently keep a young woman out of a STEM career. to wit:
In another experiment, Dr. Cheryan and her colleagues arranged for female undergraduates to talk to an actor pretending to be a computer science major. If the actor wore a T-shirt that said “I CODE THEREFORE I AM” and claimed to enjoy video games, the students expressed less interest in studying computer science than if the actor wore a solid shirt and claimed to enjoy hanging out with friends — even if the T-shirt-clad actor was another woman.
So it appears that the t-shirt barbie is wearing will actually be counterproductive. Girls don't like other girls in t-shirts
Here is the article cited. It unabashedly blames males, and for things like -- almost everything about them. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10...
To make up the list for the tl;dr crowd, what really keeps women out of STEM:
Star wars posters in the classroom
Science fiction books
computer parts
tech magazines
T-Shirrt on men or women with anything technical on them.
pop culture portrayals of scientists as white or asian men.
Guys drinking beer when you don't
This sounds so ridiculous that people should doubt my veracity, but its right there in the article.
One of the most damning things on this list is "computer parts. If seeing computer parts keeps a woman out of STEM, just what on gawds green earth is she going to do when she sees on where she works? It is exceptionally difficult to work with computers when seeing one makes you quit working with them.
By the way, there is an easter egg in the second article, a one sentence paragraph that kinda sums it all up. Let's see if you find it.
I think you are reading too much into this. These people are not blaming men, not blaming 50% of the population. They are identifying institution
Personally I like NOT having the choice. For a long time I thought I was smarter than Google with my local knowledge of roads.
That's nice, but in the end, It didn't work at all.
Even when I split it up on the home computer and sent it to the phone. Google maps for my phone screwed it up.
I agree. I sort of wonder if they eliminated all but the most obvious route was in response to the dumpkoffs that got lost or killed by trying weird directions and found themselves driving off cliffs when trying to drive their Camry on Jeep roads?
We live in a world where people can sue for stupidity, like not knowing that alligators live in ponds in Florida, so why not?
Most likely they eliminated those secondary routes as the most obvious ones have been upgraded.
I'd certainly like to have some control over my routing. NOt have some eliminated because of someone elses decision.
One of these nasty tidbits that in essence tells women that they need special help because they can easily be turned away from a STEM career:
Does the stereotype that boys are better than girls in math and science still effect girls today? Research pro led in this report shows that negative stereotypes about girls’ abilities in math can indeed measurably lower girls’ test performance. Researchers also believe that stereotypes can lower girls’ aspirations for science and engineering careers over time. When test adminis- trators tell students that girls and boys are equally capable in math, however, the difference in performance essentially disappears, illustrating that changes in the learning environment can improve girls’ achievement in math.
What an odd thing, that telling a person they are not good at something makes them not good at something. Bloody hell, I was told I was going to be a failure by my parents, my teachers, my guidance counselors, from third grade on. Every damn day. I wasn't, I actually became quite successful. Would I have been a failure if I was female? What is the difference?
In addition, at least where I spent my career, most of the accountants were female. There was some math involved. What are the factors that cause this?
The concept that any negativity will cause a person to fail, is disturbing indeed. How does one function in the workplace when the key to getting ahead is telling others that they suck, in the process making them incompetent.
Amazingly enough they managed to make a pop culture reference complaining about the stereotyped female STEM characters in "The Big Bang Theory". Having worked with a lot of engineers of both male and female - that is us! What the hell, are we all supposed to become Danica McKellar, or Hedy Lamar so that women decide that it is cool to become an engineer or mathematician?
Regardless, in the second article, all of the changes needed and the implications derived from it are that men must change. Ergo males are at fault for the problem. Who else would be at fault?
It's not really supposed to "make" girls become developers, any more than a Disney Princess is supposed to make them royalty. Children just like to play "grown-ups", even if sometimes we think being a grown-up sucks (like those dolls that wet themselves... ugh).
The significance is that children can see that being a game developer is something women. Maybe it seems obvious to adults (well , some of us, a few are still in denial) but child psychologists will tell you that role models are really important.
I know, I went through a lifetime of steroid dependence tryting to be like a he-man doll I had as a young boy - that is kidding of course.
It's the part I don't get though. I never gave a damn about who thought what. Neither did the feamle engineers I worked with. They just knew what they wanted to be and did it. And to a person, they scoffed at the ideas being presented today for the dearth of women in STEM careers.
In perhaps the greatest irony, I developed my views on getting women involved in STEM, from women involved in STEM. Which do not seem to be anything like the views of women who think that men are keeping women out of STEM careers.
Which is why I believe that after a small part of my career was trying to get more women involved in STEM, I've come to the conclusion that we will not cure this problem by blaming men. Or Barbie. A woman who wants to have a career in STEM should be encouraged, but not coddled. Because the coddling stops abruptly upon entering the workplace. Because coding does not have a gender. Rocket science does not have a gender. And it is not cool or anything like that except to peopple who believe it is cool from the start.
Click on the route and drag to make a new waypoint where you want.
If you want to add another destination click on the + next to the departure time.
I use both all the time.
I tried that - it did not work. I spent way too much time trying to create a trip to florida this winter with a stop off at a friend in Tennessee's place. The issue I had was confirmed. Coupled with th egoogle smartphone app, it was less than useless.
Maybe it was fixed, maybe not. Do not care, do not use anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
When did I say it was a country? Oh, I see... You couldn't even begin to address my simple question, because it exposes the truth about race and IQ...
Pat Buchanan - is that you?
Amazing that stupid fucks keep posting on that, especially when the stupid fucks that usually hold that opinion are not on first place on that list.
Intelligence is an individual trait, not a racial trait.
And as you so nicely prove AC, you don't have to have dark pigmentation to be on the derpish end of the Bell curve.
As long as they can do so cheaply.
I was 100 percent with you, until you posted that.
We've been trying the concept of the path to wealth is via having as many people as possible as poor as possible here since the early 1980s. It always looks like a good idea until they come for your wealth.
I see your still having trouble understanding the sentence I'll try check boxes this time. Remember you need all 3 check boxes to qualify.
If you are consistently unable to get your point across, it's your problem.
I'll help you analyses the sentence since you seem unable to.
If however you can not be productive due to your drug addiction and must use welfare because you can't keep a job you don't deserve welfare.
The person has to be an addict, unable to be a productive member of society because of that addiction, uses welfare because they can't keep a job due to their addiction, if they meet all those criteria then they don't deserve welfare.
So you are saying if the addiction is not the cause of their inability to be a productive member of society, you are okay with them being an addict? What if, say they are an untreated bipolar person?
No need to lecture me on parsing sentences when it is you who are having difficulties putting them together.
Most people brains shut off when the greed center in their brain is triggered.
Its the old confidence man thing.
And for the silliest things. Here's an example.
Old Toyota RV's. These were made from the late 70's to the early 90's. But they have become popular in recent years. I have a mid-80's version.
But people have become so enamored of the things that Craigslist and eBay get scammers regularly. With crazy stuff like telling the marks that the Mini-RV is wrapped in plastic in storage at an airport warehouse, or ripped off photos of other people's RV's posing as the scammer's own. With the owner of the RV warning the marks that it is a scam. The marks do not care.
Belonging to a group involved with the Toyhomes, you can see the greed and scamming at work. I'd seen dozens of people ripped off, flying to another state with the intention of buying the RV and driving it back. And if you try to talk people out of it, you'll get attacked for it by other people who are future marks, and what can only be some of the scammers.
Then after being taken to the cleaners, the marks come back and moan about it. But there have been a few who have a greed center so strong they have been scammed more than once.
All over 30 year old RVs
We didn't used to have anesthesia and clean medical facilities, either, and people survived then, too.
Just not very often.
I'm just waiting for the first time that the inability to make a 911 call quickly from one of these shows (heart attack, stroke, active shooter, etc.) results in someone's unnecessary death. After one lawsuit erases the benefits of the entire tour, the insurance companies will start levying huge surcharges for any shows that ban cellphones, and all this nonsense will take care of itself.
If you have to be prepared for th eworst possible thing happening, consider that yout heart attack stroke might occur in the moiddle of teh throng of peopel.l, so that's pretty fucking irresponsible isn't it. They might die before you can get them outside.
Better to camp out inside the emergency ward if we take that approach. Otherwise you can make up thousands of scenarios, such as the companies that produce traffic lights, all of the companies that let out during rush hour. Anything - any condition that makes for an uneeded death because of inconvenience.
Make sure someone can listen and watch you screw, because you know hw many heart attacks happen then? Oh, and in public restroom stalls. Emergency responders told me that's a big one.
I go to a lot of concerts but I find smart phone users during the show very obnoxious.
I do not do music performances, but when I'm giving a presentation - which I do quite often, and someone's phone rings I stop and tell them we'll resume when they are finished.
That seems to stop the problem pretty quickly. I've never stopped a presentation twice. It's amusing to see everyone turning off their phones.
Also, charging below the maximum that could potentially be extracted from the market obviously can't be a rational move. Nope, scalpers are the only rational actors involved.
I liken it to the case of Martin Shkreli of Turing Pharmaceuticals infamy, who after buying the firm, raised the price of the drug Daraprim by over 5000 percent from around 13 dollars to 750 dollars per dose.
He's since been arrested for other money shennnagins like securities fraud.
Now yes, if you are a person who is going to die without Daraprim, you'll probably pay the man. But at some point it becomes indistinguishable from blackmail. In addition, with one group extracting all of your income, you do not have money to spend with other groups.
That's why I say that the free market must be protected from itself. That's why I say that the free market will kill people if given the chance. Certainly if I had to take that drug every day, I would at 13.50 a dose, but would just let nature take it's course and die at 750.00 a day. I have no plans to give my estate to the good Mr Shkreli.
And while going to concerts or football games isn't a life and death matter, it does serve as an illustration of what happens when a group goes for maximum pecuniary extraction. It's a predatory thing. Middleman ticket services don't care if they put a venue out of business. There are plenty more places (yet) As long as Midleman Ticket Services makes their money - and make no mistake - the costs of maintaining a venue, paying the bills for it and procuring the entertainment is a little more than having a computer and buying up all of the tickets when they go on sale.
The only free market solution for the venues is to hike the prices to the maximum amount that people will pay as they sell them. That way the professional scalpers won't sell any of their scalped tickets.
Then again, the venues seem to understand that happy people who don't feel they are being fleeced tend to spend even more money once inside the venue.
Take the Jan 18 @%$&* show.
Speak not her name in here laggard!
They aren't priced at "what the market will bear" but are priced at "what the market will pay" -- there is a difference. Market-clearing price and all that...
Looking at a homogenous sort of "What the market will pay" is a real loser. Because not everyone is going to have the same level of where they cut off. That inevitably leads to less attendance. Now if I have to pay 90 dollars a ticket, I'll think long and hard about what I will go to.
An example - I used to travel to my favorite Hockey team's games many times a year. As the prices increased, I started to go to less and less. At first I spent around the same price on tickets in total. So a while back I might have gone to 10 games, then it went to 5, then to 2, and then I just got out of the habit.
And as I started going to fewer games, I bought less and less food and promotional items. Now its zero.
Less money for them, more for me.
Another example that doesn't employ middlemen taking tickets is when the local university tried a tactic that they used for football and applied it to the BBall team. For the football team, a huge portion of the tickets are bought by corporations that then hand them out to visitors as a promo when they visit the corporations.
So they tried it with the Basketball team. Didn't work at all because even when the corporations gave tickets away, so many games were in the middle of the week that the recipients didn't bother to drive to them. The results? 3/4 empty arena - because no one could buy the tickets the corporate customers bought, and 3/4 empty arenas don't translate into concession sales. Concession sales, by the way, make a metric shitload of money. Money thatwhen you don't make it, you lose money overall. Amazingly enough, the wome's team had more attendance than the mens, and made more money. Point is, attendance is important, and if some one or group makes ticket prices at the maximum th market will pay, the market won't pay any more, and other profit making items will not be sold.
And since locals couldn't get tickets, they lost interest, and then the students lost interest, and they stayed away.
Looking at this as a pure free market exercise fails, as that particular solution does not take all of the extractable money into account. It doesn't look a penny past the ticket sales and what a middleman can make from them.
The one big thing here no one is mentioning so far: how do the scalpers have a market? If people are willing to pay "many times over face value" then the scalpers are just recognizing what the market will bear.
Probably because it pisses people off to hell and back. I see a high speed stock situation happening. where scalpers sell to scalpers who then sell to more scalpers and then its scalpers all the way down.
If your free market example is to be adhered to religiously, a whole shitload of people hwo do nothing but buy and resell will make money, but the venue will suffer. After all, the only way to find out what the market will bear is to exceed what it will bear. And everyone has a different max price they will pay.
And as for pissing people off, our university had a number of new seats to offer,at the fBll stadium. people lined up, and no one in line got a ticket - they sold out in something like 24 seconds to the first group online. Damn near a riot ensued.
The completely free market will kill people if there is a profit in it - much better to not piss off the very people yu are trying to get to go to your venue.
Heh. My actual thought after going to their website ("I wonder if it's really cheap"): Whoa! $144 per year for that? No way!
Hey! Good hacks don't come cheap, ya freeloader!
"wireless signals needs to be 10 to 100 times faster and be far more responsive to allow advanced technologies like virtual surgery"
Can I pre-emptively opt-out of remote wireless surgery on my medical records please!
Greeting and salutations, Citizen of the world! Please to send 150 bitcoin to this address, and we will make certain your wireless operation goes well. You never know what could happen when you don't take precautions like paying us 150 bitcoin! As well, we reset your password, but good news! It is only 5 bitcoin to tell you what the new one is.
Go read I, Robot.
Does a great job of discussing and documenting what happens when the computer is faced with two equally bad outcomes.
Then come back and post.
I read it. when did I Robot hapen . I love fact based history like I Robot. Puts a real perspective on reality
Wrong - Atheism is lack of belief in a God. That is a critical distinction.
Wrong. What you described is Agnosticism.
Wrong, an agnostic, according to Merriam Webster, is: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
That is what the agnostic person believes. Their "view, as defined in the dictionary.
An atheist believes that a God does not exist. Also from Merriam Webster.
Which is the same thing as a lack of belief in a God. Because to take your view, an atheist would have to believe in a God to not believe in.
You know, you make the assumption that the reason the person on welfare is on welfare is because of their drug addiction. By the way, wealthy people also burn out while using drugs, its just that it is easier to hide.
Where did I make that assumption? If you didn't quote what I wrote I would think you are responding to the wrong person. Just reread my comment below.
If however you can not be productive due to your drug addiction and must use welfare because you can't keep a job you don't deserve welfare.
Umm. lessee here you wrote: If however you can not be productive due to your drug addiction and must use welfare because you can't keep a job you don't deserve welfare
Yup, that's what you wrote.
The nature of insurance just changes, from covering individual drivers to insuring manufacturers and fleet operators for product liability. The biggest impact will be on the legal profession: a whole army of bottom feeders will disappear, to be replaced with smaller additions to corporate lawyer ranks. A whole genre of late-night TV advertising will be replaced by ads for body mods, escort services and medical tourism services.
I suspect that individuals insurance will just shift to ransomware or drive by hack attacks.
What tI am curious about is the kidnapping angle. Hacked car takes wealthy dude direct to wherever they hold him. Probably need kidnap insurance as well.
Going off topic here, but imagine the possibilities. If there is a warrant out for you, or the police want to interrogate you, they can just use their backdoor and drive you right to the station. no need for messy arrests or other unpleasantness. As soon as your vehicle of interest starts in motion, you are theirs.
Point is: such cars will most likely never make decisions between 2 targets;
Most likely never doesn't mean never. And it is true that sometimes decisions have to be made. A drunk biker played chicken with me one evening a long time ago. I had to decide whether to make a high speed exit, which ended up with me wrecking my car and putting my passengers in danger. As it turned out, I made what was probably the wrong decision, My car did a rollover. Fortunately, no one of my three passengers was hurt. But I have always wondered what I would do if the situation occured again. It surely would have killed the biker if I didn't move, but a near miracle that no one in my car was killed or even hurt.
Point is, ethical decisions will have to be made, they are made now, and they cannot be avoided. So it will only be a matter of time before an autonomous car quite deliberately kills someone.
It will be interesting to see what the autonomous vehicle would do if it found itself in my shoes. Would it determine that the oncoming vehicle only had one person and just do a header into it? Maybe. Altogether too many proponents of AVs refuse to even speculate.
I don't think either of us have been hiding under a rock for the past several years.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
I read that article but no-where does it blame men.
Are you serious? Male dominated "culture" must change or else women will not enter the culture. As Thinkprogress.org states:
"There is also persistent discrimination against women who enter the science and math fields. CTI’s study found that almost a third of “senior leaders” in STEM fields think a woman would never be able to reach top jobs at their organizations. A part of this surely comes from a general societal bias against women in those fields. Previous research has shown that even STEM professors doubt the ability of their female students. Biases against women in STEM start when they’re young girls and can become so ingrained as to actually make the girls worse at the subject. http://thinkprogress.org/econo...
So anyhow - who is doing this discrimination -the Flying Burrito Pug?
As well, they are far more likely to get into STEM if the classrooms do not have male type art on the wall:
Over and over, Dr. Cheryan and her colleagues have found that female students are more interested in enrolling in a computer class if they are shown a classroom (whether virtual or real) decorated not with “Star Wars” posters, science-fiction books, computer parts and tech magazines, but with a more neutral décor — art and nature posters, coffee makers, plants and general-interest magazines.
So men need to stop putting things that offend women on the walls. A Star Wars poster can keep them out of tech.?!?!
As well, the Barbie in a T-shirt and jeans might j8ust backfireon Mattel because yup, you guessed it, a person in jeans can apparently keep a young woman out of a STEM career. to wit:
In another experiment, Dr. Cheryan and her colleagues arranged for female undergraduates to talk to an actor pretending to be a computer science major. If the actor wore a T-shirt that said “I CODE THEREFORE I AM” and claimed to enjoy video games, the students expressed less interest in studying computer science than if the actor wore a solid shirt and claimed to enjoy hanging out with friends — even if the T-shirt-clad actor was another woman.
So it appears that the t-shirt barbie is wearing will actually be counterproductive. Girls don't like other girls in t-shirts
Here is the article cited. It unabashedly blames males, and for things like -- almost everything about them. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10...
To make up the list for the tl;dr crowd, what really keeps women out of STEM:
Star wars posters in the classroom
Science fiction books
computer parts
tech magazines
T-Shirrt on men or women with anything technical on them.
pop culture portrayals of scientists as white or asian men.
Guys drinking beer when you don't
This sounds so ridiculous that people should doubt my veracity, but its right there in the article. One of the most damning things on this list is "computer parts. If seeing computer parts keeps a woman out of STEM, just what on gawds green earth is she going to do when she sees on where she works? It is exceptionally difficult to work with computers when seeing one makes you quit working with them.
By the way, there is an easter egg in the second article, a one sentence paragraph that kinda sums it all up. Let's see if you find it.
I think you are reading too much into this. These people are not blaming men, not blaming 50% of the population. They are identifying institution
Personally I like NOT having the choice. For a long time I thought I was smarter than Google with my local knowledge of roads. That's nice, but in the end, It didn't work at all.
Even when I split it up on the home computer and sent it to the phone. Google maps for my phone screwed it up.
I agree. I sort of wonder if they eliminated all but the most obvious route was in response to the dumpkoffs that got lost or killed by trying weird directions and found themselves driving off cliffs when trying to drive their Camry on Jeep roads?
We live in a world where people can sue for stupidity, like not knowing that alligators live in ponds in Florida, so why not?
Most likely they eliminated those secondary routes as the most obvious ones have been upgraded.
I'd certainly like to have some control over my routing. NOt have some eliminated because of someone elses decision.
Barbie is aimed at really young children, so I think by the time girls start to study STEM seriously they are probably well beyond such toys.
I'm not sure where you got the blaming men bit from. How does Game Developer Barbie blame men?
Barbie is aimed at really young children, so I think by the time girls start to study STEM seriously they are probably well beyond such toys.
I'm not sure where you got the blaming men bit from. How does Game Developer Barbie blame men?
I don't think either of us have been hiding under a rock for the past several years.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
One of my (not) favorites because of the nasty implications is from this article: http://www.aauw.org/files/2013...
One of these nasty tidbits that in essence tells women that they need special help because they can easily be turned away from a STEM career:
Does the stereotype that boys are better than girls in math and science still effect girls today? Research pro led in this report shows that negative stereotypes about girls’ abilities in math can indeed measurably lower girls’ test performance. Researchers also believe that stereotypes can lower girls’ aspirations for science and engineering careers over time. When test adminis- trators tell students that girls and boys are equally capable in math, however, the difference in performance essentially disappears, illustrating that changes in the learning environment can improve girls’ achievement in math.
What an odd thing, that telling a person they are not good at something makes them not good at something. Bloody hell, I was told I was going to be a failure by my parents, my teachers, my guidance counselors, from third grade on. Every damn day. I wasn't, I actually became quite successful. Would I have been a failure if I was female? What is the difference?
In addition, at least where I spent my career, most of the accountants were female. There was some math involved. What are the factors that cause this?
The concept that any negativity will cause a person to fail, is disturbing indeed. How does one function in the workplace when the key to getting ahead is telling others that they suck, in the process making them incompetent.
Amazingly enough they managed to make a pop culture reference complaining about the stereotyped female STEM characters in "The Big Bang Theory". Having worked with a lot of engineers of both male and female - that is us! What the hell, are we all supposed to become Danica McKellar, or Hedy Lamar so that women decide that it is cool to become an engineer or mathematician?
Regardless, in the second article, all of the changes needed and the implications derived from it are that men must change. Ergo males are at fault for the problem. Who else would be at fault?
It's not really supposed to "make" girls become developers, any more than a Disney Princess is supposed to make them royalty. Children just like to play "grown-ups", even if sometimes we think being a grown-up sucks (like those dolls that wet themselves... ugh).
The significance is that children can see that being a game developer is something women. Maybe it seems obvious to adults (well , some of us, a few are still in denial) but child psychologists will tell you that role models are really important.
I know, I went through a lifetime of steroid dependence tryting to be like a he-man doll I had as a young boy - that is kidding of course.
It's the part I don't get though. I never gave a damn about who thought what. Neither did the feamle engineers I worked with. They just knew what they wanted to be and did it. And to a person, they scoffed at the ideas being presented today for the dearth of women in STEM careers.
In perhaps the greatest irony, I developed my views on getting women involved in STEM, from women involved in STEM. Which do not seem to be anything like the views of women who think that men are keeping women out of STEM careers.
Which is why I believe that after a small part of my career was trying to get more women involved in STEM, I've come to the conclusion that we will not cure this problem by blaming men. Or Barbie. A woman who wants to have a career in STEM should be encouraged, but not coddled. Because the coddling stops abruptly upon entering the workplace. Because coding does not have a gender. Rocket science does not have a gender. And it is not cool or anything like that except to peopple who believe it is cool from the start.
Click on the route and drag to make a new waypoint where you want.
If you want to add another destination click on the + next to the departure time.
I use both all the time.
I tried that - it did not work. I spent way too much time trying to create a trip to florida this winter with a stop off at a friend in Tennessee's place. The issue I had was confirmed. Coupled with th egoogle smartphone app, it was less than useless.
Maybe it was fixed, maybe not. Do not care, do not use anymore.