It's not an oversimplification, it's the legal definition. And the law is not capitalism, I don't understand where that even comes into play. The legal system of the United States is not capitalism, it's a constitutional democratic republic.
A nonprofit in the United States does not have owners. Control is not ownership, the two things are distinctly different concepts. And the board of a nonprofit does not have unlimited control, they could not legally, for example, simply liquidate the assets of a nonprofit and give it to themselves.
Trump is breaking the law. He may or may not ultimately be subject to penalties for that, but what he is doing with the management of the Trump Foundation is illegal.
You may have had shares in a for-profit company that did some charitable work, or you might have been part of a nonprofit organization that had members, but you were not a shareholder of a nonprofit, there is no such thing.
Tell me what those people do that somebody making $80k can't do.
There is never a justifiable amount of work that any human can do to justify a $500k+ salary. It's just not possible. I don't care if it's the director of a nonprofit or the CEO of a Fortune 500, there is no possible justification for any one human to be given that much money in a year.
And the United Way isn't even a charity. They don't do anything for anybody. All they do is move money around and take a huge cut.
We don't necessarily have to tax carbon emissions. We can tax coal, oil, and gas production instead. We can end the depletion deduction. We can make fossil fuel production companies ineligible for any subsidies or deductions. We can ban fracking.
There are plenty of things we can do to make it much more expensive to use fossil fuel than to use renewables without subsidizing nuclear or taxing carbon emissions directly.
Why would you use Oracle for anything? Is there really something that Oracle does that an open-source database can't do? I mean, they're clearly a horrific company to do business with, it would seem that if there's any other solution that would work it would be an obvious choice not to use Oracle.
"Fancy cruise control" as you call it is already a product, is already in shipping cars, and you can buy it today. It's not five years away. Some currently available mass production cars already have the ability to maintain their lane, change lanes when directed, and maintain speed and distance in traffic. It's not just research and development, it's for sale.
What's going to be here in five years is a product that will take you from point A to point B without you doing anything but telling it where you want to be. Those points will likely not initially be any point in the country, but they will likely be any point within a city that's accessible by city street. Successful research and development leads to products, and by every reasonable measure, the current research and development is very successful, since they're already putting those research and development cars on the public streets.
And since you mention freeways, driving on the freeway is actually the easy part. City streets are a much harder problem, but they're a problem that's also nearly solved.
Please explain why you think I don't know what I'm talking about. Do you think the technology demonstrations have all been faked? Do you have some sort of insider knowledge about it not working that contradicts all the information that's been published about how well these systems work now?
You're declaring it "hype" when anybody paying attention can see it's happening. So please, if you've got something useful to add, do so.
What you don't seem to understand is that it's already there, on public roads now. It's not decades away. It's already happening. And it's less than a decade from being a product that you can go buy. People were scared when elevators stopped having operators too. Sure, elevators are an easy problem, cars are a hard problem. But when AIs have already driven millions of miles on public roads in traffic, you can't claim that it isn't going to happen without sounding like a crazy person. And you can't claim that it won't be allowed to happen for decades when it's already being allowed without sounding a bit deranged.
The point is that the technology already works. At this point, it's all about refining it. And it's a very reasonable assumption that they're going to make that ship date, because they've got five years to refine a technology that is already workable now.
This is not some far-off maybe scenario. Self-driving cars are on the road today. Millions of miles have been driven by computers. They will be a product, and they will be a product within five years.
Sure they do. Cars are pretty much stuck in Newtonian physics.
Most of the issues that exist while driving are defined by making guesses about what other things are on the road are going to do. A human has visual and audio and to a much lesser extent tactile cues about that, and makes decisions from those inputs. An AI can have those inputs along with additional data. A human has typically at best a 220 degree field of view. The AI gets 360. It can monitor small cues in every direction to determine what's most likely to happen next and can actually make a better guess than a human, because it can acquire and process more data.
Sure. Keep telling yourself that. Never mind that it's already happening, never mind that Ford has already announced a ship date, just go back to sleep.
If by "not anytime soon" you mean "sometime within the next five years" you're right.
This is happening, and it's happening quickly. The AIs that exist now are already better than average human drivers. They will quickly improve to the point that they're better than any human driver. A driving AI doesn't have to be better than a human at everything, it just has to be better than a human at driving. And that's rapidly becoming a solved problem.
It's the chess situation all over again. Lots of people denied that computers would ever be able to beat a grandmaster right up until the point where it happened.
The standard for car fires is water. Gasoline can be extinguished with water, you just have to use enough of it.
Water-based foam is also commonly used.
But you're not going to see anything more exotic than that used for most car fires. Even for a burning VW magnesium engine block, the standard is spraying water while the block burns itself out.
Using the driver assist technologies isn't mandatory.
But it is a great feature, and can take some of the monotony of driving away. I want more of it.
Yes, driving can be fun. Zipping around the twisty-windies is great. (It's even more fun on two wheels than it is inside four.) It can also be utter boredom.
My electric car still has a gas engine too, but when 300 mile range hits my price point, chances are it won't.
There are some obvious signs that are sufficient. For example, head detached from body is generally a pretty good one, as is brain matter splattered. They don't specify how they knew, but it is sometimes possible to definitively diagnose death from a distance.
Slashdot Mirror
And how exactly does paying someone millions of dollars a year keep them from having a psychotic break?
Because of course it doesn't. Somebody making $150k is no more likely to do that than somebody making $150 million.
It's not an oversimplification, it's the legal definition. And the law is not capitalism, I don't understand where that even comes into play. The legal system of the United States is not capitalism, it's a constitutional democratic republic.
A nonprofit in the United States does not have owners. Control is not ownership, the two things are distinctly different concepts. And the board of a nonprofit does not have unlimited control, they could not legally, for example, simply liquidate the assets of a nonprofit and give it to themselves.
Trump is breaking the law. He may or may not ultimately be subject to penalties for that, but what he is doing with the management of the Trump Foundation is illegal.
Sure. My father could pay his tuition for a year with money from a minimum wage summer job, and have money left over for gas and food.
By the time I went to school, the same school could still be paid for with a summer job and part time work during the school year.
Today, tuition at the same state school could not be paid by working a full time minimum wage job all year long.
Absolutely untrue. A nonprofit has no owners, therefore it has no shareholders.
http://cullinanelaw.com/nonpro...
You may have had shares in a for-profit company that did some charitable work, or you might have been part of a nonprofit organization that had members, but you were not a shareholder of a nonprofit, there is no such thing.
Tell me what those people do that somebody making $80k can't do.
There is never a justifiable amount of work that any human can do to justify a $500k+ salary. It's just not possible. I don't care if it's the director of a nonprofit or the CEO of a Fortune 500, there is no possible justification for any one human to be given that much money in a year.
And the United Way isn't even a charity. They don't do anything for anybody. All they do is move money around and take a huge cut.
And legally can't be, because they're unconstitutional.
We don't necessarily have to tax carbon emissions. We can tax coal, oil, and gas production instead. We can end the depletion deduction. We can make fossil fuel production companies ineligible for any subsidies or deductions. We can ban fracking.
There are plenty of things we can do to make it much more expensive to use fossil fuel than to use renewables without subsidizing nuclear or taxing carbon emissions directly.
So, maybe somebody here can answer this...
Why would you use Oracle for anything? Is there really something that Oracle does that an open-source database can't do? I mean, they're clearly a horrific company to do business with, it would seem that if there's any other solution that would work it would be an obvious choice not to use Oracle.
I'm not a database guy, it's a real question.
Except it does work....
http://www.imore.com/iphone-7-...
Hey, look, the gloves work fine:
http://www.imore.com/iphone-7-...
"Fancy cruise control" as you call it is already a product, is already in shipping cars, and you can buy it today. It's not five years away. Some currently available mass production cars already have the ability to maintain their lane, change lanes when directed, and maintain speed and distance in traffic. It's not just research and development, it's for sale.
What's going to be here in five years is a product that will take you from point A to point B without you doing anything but telling it where you want to be. Those points will likely not initially be any point in the country, but they will likely be any point within a city that's accessible by city street. Successful research and development leads to products, and by every reasonable measure, the current research and development is very successful, since they're already putting those research and development cars on the public streets.
And since you mention freeways, driving on the freeway is actually the easy part. City streets are a much harder problem, but they're a problem that's also nearly solved.
Please explain why you think I don't know what I'm talking about. Do you think the technology demonstrations have all been faked? Do you have some sort of insider knowledge about it not working that contradicts all the information that's been published about how well these systems work now?
You're declaring it "hype" when anybody paying attention can see it's happening. So please, if you've got something useful to add, do so.
What you don't seem to understand is that it's already there, on public roads now.
It's not decades away. It's already happening.
And it's less than a decade from being a product that you can go buy.
People were scared when elevators stopped having operators too. Sure, elevators are an easy problem, cars are a hard problem.
But when AIs have already driven millions of miles on public roads in traffic, you can't claim that it isn't going to happen without sounding like a crazy person.
And you can't claim that it won't be allowed to happen for decades when it's already being allowed without sounding a bit deranged.
The point is that the technology already works. At this point, it's all about refining it. And it's a very reasonable assumption that they're going to make that ship date, because they've got five years to refine a technology that is already workable now.
This is not some far-off maybe scenario. Self-driving cars are on the road today. Millions of miles have been driven by computers. They will be a product, and they will be a product within five years.
Sure they do. Cars are pretty much stuck in Newtonian physics.
Most of the issues that exist while driving are defined by making guesses about what other things are on the road are going to do. A human has visual and audio and to a much lesser extent tactile cues about that, and makes decisions from those inputs. An AI can have those inputs along with additional data. A human has typically at best a 220 degree field of view. The AI gets 360. It can monitor small cues in every direction to determine what's most likely to happen next and can actually make a better guess than a human, because it can acquire and process more data.
I'd rather see it in F1. NASCAR is boring.
Whereas pardoning a hero like Snowden would cement his legacy.
Ideally the pardon and Presidential Medal of Freedom would be given to Snowden at the same time.
Sure. Keep telling yourself that. Never mind that it's already happening, never mind that Ford has already announced a ship date, just go back to sleep.
If by "not anytime soon" you mean "sometime within the next five years" you're right.
This is happening, and it's happening quickly. The AIs that exist now are already better than average human drivers. They will quickly improve to the point that they're better than any human driver. A driving AI doesn't have to be better than a human at everything, it just has to be better than a human at driving. And that's rapidly becoming a solved problem.
It's the chess situation all over again. Lots of people denied that computers would ever be able to beat a grandmaster right up until the point where it happened.
The standard for car fires is water. Gasoline can be extinguished with water, you just have to use enough of it.
Water-based foam is also commonly used.
But you're not going to see anything more exotic than that used for most car fires. Even for a burning VW magnesium engine block, the standard is spraying water while the block burns itself out.
Using the driver assist technologies isn't mandatory.
But it is a great feature, and can take some of the monotony of driving away. I want more of it.
Yes, driving can be fun. Zipping around the twisty-windies is great. (It's even more fun on two wheels than it is inside four.) It can also be utter boredom.
My electric car still has a gas engine too, but when 300 mile range hits my price point, chances are it won't.
Every system I've ever dealt with, the big red button causes a Halon (ok, Ecaro 25 these days) dump. The yellow button is the holdoff button.
In bigger data centers, that big red button also triggers the UPS off circuit.
I don't have an Apple Watch, but I have friends that do. They've never complained of a time problem, and they absolutely would if it had one.
It's got a RTC in the processor, it's essentially an ARMv7 - which has that baked in.
The v1 watch doesn't have its own GPS, it syncs to the iPhone.
Absolutely true.
I don't wear a watch any more. I haven't since my phone had a clock on it (and yes, I had a cell phone before they had clocks).
The Apple Watch is cool. If I wore a watch, I'd probably get one. As it is, my iPhone does the job, I don't need a watch.
There are some obvious signs that are sufficient. For example, head detached from body is generally a pretty good one, as is brain matter splattered. They don't specify how they knew, but it is sometimes possible to definitively diagnose death from a distance.
Yeah. They do their best to never cut the power on those circuits. If the towers are still standing, chances are good that the circuit is hot.