San Francisco is 2% of the states population. So to power them they would need to decrease power used by computers from 3% to 1% over the entire state. Meaning a 67% decrease. How inefficient are computers that that is doable? Considering that computers now means tablets, which have a huge reason to be as energy efficient as possible, I do not see this being all that doable.
I really wonder how much that really matters? Climate research seems much like tobacco studies, spend billions on study after study to get the exact same answers every year. Smoke less, and pollute less. The big difference in the two is that with tobacco, you can stop smoking and regain a lot of your lost health, while climate research seems to indicate that we have gone to far to stop runaway global warming.
We really do not gain much by a series of studies measuring the melting of the arctic, followed by a series of articles stating that they were wrong and it has actually been growing.
Sure, but that is a case of bullies who have the exact some power of those they bully. It's two people with the same abilities having a row. Instead of Reddit's case of a bully squashing ants.
This. His speech portrays a very bad picture of himself. As the only one with any power, it is everyone else who are bullies, and he is just trying to do good.
Education would only exacerbate the problem. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to train a human, and many many years. It takes a few minutes to teach a machine a lifetime of knowledge. The one thing thing that computers are most advanced from us is their ability to learn. So the more knowledge oriented the job, the easier it is to automate. Robots are still far away from being good are physical labor, but making a lawyer bot is in our ability today.
While I do not agree what a pie even normally is fully enclosed, it clearly is not a pie. Meat pies exist, and I see no reason to not call them pies. But a pizza is flat. It has a completely different shape and crust, and its toppings are completely unlike any sort of pie filling ever used. While I think you could make a pie with a bread crust, or a pie with pizza flavored filling, a pizza has no similarities to a pie, there is not one feature of a pizza that is shared with a pie.
People have studied that popular saying to death. The most outrageous offenders might be able to raise the income of their employees by a cent an hour. In this case, if you cut every Amazon executive's salary in half, they could give every employee a raise of a few thousandths of a cent.
The onetime costs are low for driving, but that is actually a downside, as most of the costs come in single lump sums. You either buy a $200 junker every other month, and get caught in the middle of nowhere a few times a year and need to use a taxi or you pay $15 grand every 10 years. Then lets say you are OK with driving illegally, and don't get insurance. Sure, if you drive an average of 4 hours or more every day, and break the law, and plan on going to jail and being bankrupt for the rest of your life if you get in an accident, maybe owning a car is cheaper. But if you just need to get into town a few times a year, taxis are cheaper. You can take quite a few rides in taxis for $1000, and you will never end up spending less than that on average a year owning a car.
What does that even mean? Forced to continue driving? Driving is one of the most expensive hobbies in the world, and if you can afford to drive you can afford the far cheaper option of public transportation and taxi's.
But they do not get anything in return. This money they are paying the music industry does not make it legal for them to stream any music, to anyone. All copyrighted music that Youtube or anyone else detects gets removed. Are you saying that the music industry owns some patent on audio streaming, and for a youtube videos to have sound they have to pay the RIAA for that right?
The thing is that Google already deletes videos which copyright infringe, for both video and audio. Legally, I do not see how they owe them anything. Do all major sites pay RIAA money?
Well for good or ill, they are a company, and can do anything that does not violate the law as long as their shareholders do not make a fuss. And Twitter was always going to be a flash in the pan, I think they are just trying anything and everything to not fade into obscurity. I think tumbler has shown that their is demand for safe places on the internet that protect sjws and allow them to say anything they want and harass whoever they want.
That is some very impressive convoluted ideas you have there. in reality, it has already been tested many times, retweet BLM members, feminists, etc. with the genders/sexuality/race swapped and twitter will ban you for hate speech. Because, the BLM founder tweeting about wanting to kill all white people is fine, but someone else tweeting about wanting to kill all black people is hate speech.
Trump was the only major candidate who has always said that gay couples deserve the same protections and rights as all other couples. Sanders, wishy-wash in 2000, would not give an opinion. Hillary, stated with no ambiguity that marriage was between a man and a woman exclusively in 2000. Trump "I do favor a very strong domestic-partnership law that guarantees gay people the same legal protection and rights as married people. I think it’s important for gay couples who are committed to each other to not be hassled when it comes to inheritance, insurance benefits, and other simple everyday rights.” - 2000
If last year Hillary was against Homosexuals, how are we supposed to know what her opinion is going to be next year?
They already cannot afford to backup everything on the Internet, if they had two copies of everything they backup, that would mean half as many sites could be backed up.
We do not have 1/4 the free speech laws as America. In fact right now we are looking at Bill C-16, which may class improper pronoun use as harassment. Making it entirely possibly that every time someone transitions, all archives of their past gender would need to be updated or erased. While I am not positive this one law is a serious threat to The Internet Archive operating in Canada, it shows how tenuous their situation would be if they operated in Canada.
This is as ridiculous as American citizens talking about moving to Canada. You already need id to vote here and we do not allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country. We are the exact thing all these people do not want America to become.
A pro Hillary government, using voting machines owned by pro-Hillary companies, gets rigged by the smallest cheapest campaign in the history of America.
The reason why we should think so? The exit polls, are off by a few percentage points, while the pre-election polls were off by 90 percentage points.
I sort of thought the evoting machines are used to save money. No one actually seems to prefer them, but if they can replace thousand of counters they could save loads of money and effort
Their was outcry before the election from Trump supporters for allowing Soros, someone who spent 10 million, that we know of, trying to get Clinton elected, to supply the voting machines.
Their is no reason to allow this, but the establishment did not care when legitimate concerns like this were raised.
The real problem is that many people simply have no inbuilt way to evaluate the truthiness of an article. They do not even know where to start. And so label anything they disagree with as fake, and everything they agree with as truth. Their is as much, if not more, of a problem with real legit news being considered fake as their is fake storied being believed.
But what are you going to do? They already self filter anyways. I have friends online that even with Snopes articles backing me up, and a video of the original interview, still just say that some anti-Hillary article is fake news. Perhaps it actually is better for their mental health to just be allowed to never hear any opposing opinions. They will not change their opinions either way.
No one invents a machine that takes the job of 1000 factory workers away, but requires 1000 engineers to run. The entire point of automation is to require fewer or dumb-er operators/builders/maintainers, to reduce the cost of doing the job, to pay less in total wages. Automation has always hurt the working class. Just because you and everyone you know are descendants of the people who did not starve to death during the industrial revolution, does not mean that life did not get a whole lot worse for the majority.
Slashdot Mirror
San Francisco is 2% of the states population. So to power them they would need to decrease power used by computers from 3% to 1% over the entire state. Meaning a 67% decrease. How inefficient are computers that that is doable? Considering that computers now means tablets, which have a huge reason to be as energy efficient as possible, I do not see this being all that doable.
I really wonder how much that really matters? Climate research seems much like tobacco studies, spend billions on study after study to get the exact same answers every year. Smoke less, and pollute less. The big difference in the two is that with tobacco, you can stop smoking and regain a lot of your lost health, while climate research seems to indicate that we have gone to far to stop runaway global warming.
We really do not gain much by a series of studies measuring the melting of the arctic, followed by a series of articles stating that they were wrong and it has actually been growing.
Sure, but that is a case of bullies who have the exact some power of those they bully. It's two people with the same abilities having a row. Instead of Reddit's case of a bully squashing ants.
This. His speech portrays a very bad picture of himself. As the only one with any power, it is everyone else who are bullies, and he is just trying to do good.
Education would only exacerbate the problem. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to train a human, and many many years. It takes a few minutes to teach a machine a lifetime of knowledge. The one thing thing that computers are most advanced from us is their ability to learn. So the more knowledge oriented the job, the easier it is to automate. Robots are still far away from being good are physical labor, but making a lawyer bot is in our ability today.
While I do not agree what a pie even normally is fully enclosed, it clearly is not a pie. Meat pies exist, and I see no reason to not call them pies. But a pizza is flat. It has a completely different shape and crust, and its toppings are completely unlike any sort of pie filling ever used. While I think you could make a pie with a bread crust, or a pie with pizza flavored filling, a pizza has no similarities to a pie, there is not one feature of a pizza that is shared with a pie.
People have studied that popular saying to death. The most outrageous offenders might be able to raise the income of their employees by a cent an hour.
In this case, if you cut every Amazon executive's salary in half, they could give every employee a raise of a few thousandths of a cent.
The onetime costs are low for driving, but that is actually a downside, as most of the costs come in single lump sums. You either buy a $200 junker every other month, and get caught in the middle of nowhere a few times a year and need to use a taxi or you pay $15 grand every 10 years. Then lets say you are OK with driving illegally, and don't get insurance. Sure, if you drive an average of 4 hours or more every day, and break the law, and plan on going to jail and being bankrupt for the rest of your life if you get in an accident, maybe owning a car is cheaper. But if you just need to get into town a few times a year, taxis are cheaper. You can take quite a few rides in taxis for $1000, and you will never end up spending less than that on average a year owning a car.
What does that even mean? Forced to continue driving? Driving is one of the most expensive hobbies in the world, and if you can afford to drive you can afford the far cheaper option of public transportation and taxi's.
But they do not get anything in return. This money they are paying the music industry does not make it legal for them to stream any music, to anyone. All copyrighted music that Youtube or anyone else detects gets removed. Are you saying that the music industry owns some patent on audio streaming, and for a youtube videos to have sound they have to pay the RIAA for that right?
The thing is that Google already deletes videos which copyright infringe, for both video and audio. Legally, I do not see how they owe them anything. Do all major sites pay RIAA money?
Well for good or ill, they are a company, and can do anything that does not violate the law as long as their shareholders do not make a fuss.
And Twitter was always going to be a flash in the pan, I think they are just trying anything and everything to not fade into obscurity. I think tumbler has shown that their is demand for safe places on the internet that protect sjws and allow them to say anything they want and harass whoever they want.
That is some very impressive convoluted ideas you have there. in reality, it has already been tested many times, retweet BLM members, feminists, etc. with the genders/sexuality/race swapped and twitter will ban you for hate speech. Because, the BLM founder tweeting about wanting to kill all white people is fine, but someone else tweeting about wanting to kill all black people is hate speech.
You are forgetting about all the rights and restrictions that Obama did away with.
Trump was the only major candidate who has always said that gay couples deserve the same protections and rights as all other couples.
Sanders, wishy-wash in 2000, would not give an opinion.
Hillary, stated with no ambiguity that marriage was between a man and a woman exclusively in 2000.
Trump "I do favor a very strong domestic-partnership law that guarantees gay people the same legal protection and rights as married people. I think it’s important for gay couples who are committed to each other to not be hassled when it comes to inheritance, insurance benefits, and other simple everyday rights.” - 2000
If last year Hillary was against Homosexuals, how are we supposed to know what her opinion is going to be next year?
They already cannot afford to backup everything on the Internet, if they had two copies of everything they backup, that would mean half as many sites could be backed up.
We do not have 1/4 the free speech laws as America. In fact right now we are looking at Bill C-16, which may class improper pronoun use as harassment. Making it entirely possibly that every time someone transitions, all archives of their past gender would need to be updated or erased. While I am not positive this one law is a serious threat to The Internet Archive operating in Canada, it shows how tenuous their situation would be if they operated in Canada.
This is as ridiculous as American citizens talking about moving to Canada. You already need id to vote here and we do not allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country. We are the exact thing all these people do not want America to become.
Sometimes it is just your local delivery person. I do not order anything to my residence that cannot stand a solid 20 story fall.
I think by debunked he means that no one has explicitly proven it. That is why it is a conspiracy and not a court battle.
A pro Hillary government, using voting machines owned by pro-Hillary companies, gets rigged by the smallest cheapest campaign in the history of America.
The reason why we should think so? The exit polls, are off by a few percentage points, while the pre-election polls were off by 90 percentage points.
I sort of thought the evoting machines are used to save money. No one actually seems to prefer them, but if they can replace thousand of counters they could save loads of money and effort
Their was outcry before the election from Trump supporters for allowing Soros, someone who spent 10 million, that we know of, trying to get Clinton elected, to supply the voting machines.
Their is no reason to allow this, but the establishment did not care when legitimate concerns like this were raised.
The real problem is that many people simply have no inbuilt way to evaluate the truthiness of an article. They do not even know where to start. And so label anything they disagree with as fake, and everything they agree with as truth. Their is as much, if not more, of a problem with real legit news being considered fake as their is fake storied being believed.
But what are you going to do? They already self filter anyways. I have friends online that even with Snopes articles backing me up, and a video of the original interview, still just say that some anti-Hillary article is fake news. Perhaps it actually is better for their mental health to just be allowed to never hear any opposing opinions. They will not change their opinions either way.
No one invents a machine that takes the job of 1000 factory workers away, but requires 1000 engineers to run. The entire point of automation is to require fewer or dumb-er operators/builders/maintainers, to reduce the cost of doing the job, to pay less in total wages. Automation has always hurt the working class. Just because you and everyone you know are descendants of the people who did not starve to death during the industrial revolution, does not mean that life did not get a whole lot worse for the majority.