Doesn't that mean the wage gap that exists is even more of an issue?
Well, women who have the same seniority and work the same hours only make a little bit more than men, so the wage gap isn't too big of an issue right now.
Or did you mean to suggest that women should be paid the same as men even if they choose to work fewer hours, or choose less demanding work? Sort of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" sort of thing?
The basis of my lawsuit is that I went to Playboy.com to read the great articles.
But those women were sexually assaulting me and creating a hostile environment by exposing their bodies on adjacent pages.
I think the real joke is that Playboy.com eliminated all nudes a few years back. They stopped offending the people who just wanted to read the fine article! Not sure how long that lasted.
Only when there's an immediate and clear danger. You can exhort people to violence all you want, as long as it's abstract. That's because that's not a restriction on speech per se, it's the police stepping in to stop violence.
It may amount to government censorship at a public school. However most colleges are privately funded so there's no issue.
In the US, there are only a handful of universities that don't take government funding. And even the ones that don't: what value is there to society in a "university" that does not encourage free ad lively discussion of every idea? Not much.
Nearly as bad in your opinion, but legally worlds apart. Again, the alternatives are enforced common carrier status and forced speech. Choose.
The laws will probably change. There's a rising tide of sentiment on the right against corporate control, and is the left really going to stand up and defend corporations against individual rights?
I'd be delighted if Facebook were forced to choose between publisher (with liability) and common carrier (with no editorial discretion).
This is what the Western world's been doing for much of the late 20th century, and as you can see the bunk has been winning. Remember Einstein's definition of insanity?
Obviously we're not exerting enough influence! Why isn't the US imposing a 10% income tax on everyone in Canada? Athens had tribute totaling around 10x their GDP, back in the day. Why aren't we extorting tribute from everyone?
It's almost as if the USA is not being the biggest asshole it could be.
No one can threaten us with nukes today. And yet, I pay taxes. Why should I pay taxes when we can simply tax all foreigners living abroad? OK, maybe not France and Russia, since they have nukes and could try to get launchers working again, but everyone else!
Or, you know, as much fun as it would be to nuke Canada on a whim, maybe ethics hold us back?
I would bet it's a simple flip of a switch to let it off the leash.
Maybe so. But we also have actual nukes, if we stop caring about ethics.
What doesn't get mention about these "AI systems" is none of this is new. All these concerns were raised about missiles 50+ years ago. We have plenty of missiles that can fly way over the horizon, and kill "whatever" looks like a target.
The military has had doctrine for decades around this, and modern tactics assume it: lots of launchers over the horizon, but also something that can put human eyes on the target. Just to make sure it's not an civilian airliner, like that one time.
You can bet that in a high-intensity conflict the ROEs will change to "just kill every damn thing in that direction". I rather suspect the robotanks will be changed to berserker mode about then. Hopefully such conflicts won't be in civilian areas, but that too has happened before. Heck, we certainly got to the point in WWII that we stopped seeing civilian casualties as a downside. Humans are morally imperfect.
That's such a small percentage it isn't even worth talking about.
Let's displace 4000 people, but 100 of them will be home owners so they will benefit.
Depends where you live. I've been through plenty of very poor neighborhoods that were all houses. Tiny houses built long ago, but still. That includes parts of the SF Bay Area.
For what? A 25% increase in a house that you still have 25 years to pay off?
More like 5x in some places. And you pay it off the moment you sell and pocket the difference. Still sucks to have to move, but if your $80k house becomes a $400k knockdown and you keep the $320k, that does soften the blow.
Gentrification is a concern of the poor, and for good reason: it fucks them out of their homes.
Correction: it fucks them out of the place their renting. The poor who own their house (more common than you may think) benefit from rising prices, and proportionally more so.
Don't worry too much about changing the minds of specific individuals. Instead, think about the drift of ideas between generations (the old definition of "memes" pre-2000). That is where the difference is made. You can't e.g. convince someone not to be racist, but you can change the statistical likelyhood of their kids being racist.
The "marketplace of ideas" does not equal free speech, they're different things.
I don't see the difference.
. The "marketplace of ideas" is the concept that it's beneficial (or at least harmless) to expose the public to a debate of terrible ideas and falsehoods. "Invite the nazi to speak at the college, we'll curb-stomp him with facts and reason and show everyone how wrong his ideas are, thus making the audience less supportive of nazi ideas" - that's the "marketplace of ideas."
Sounds like free speech. The alternative is "not free speech". Especially in modern times, when almost everyone is a "Nazi", at least by social media standards.
Don't let the nazi speak at your college,
Everyone you disagree with is a "Nazi" these days, so you're saying "don't let people you disagree with speak at a government-funded school. I don't see any daylight between that and government censorship.
don't allow anti-vax content on your social media platform, etc.
Censorship by effective monopolies that dominate public debate is nearly as bad as censorship by governments. Anyway, since when are "forbidden ideas" less attractive? I don't think the human mind works that way.
Debunk the bunk. Especially, do so in a way that kids of anti-vax parents get the full story.
It's not just the telescopes, though we do need a lot more of those. It takes quite a bit of effort to do the tracking. We don't have the ability to track every asteroid continuously, not even close. We typically get very temporary views of moving dots that are hard to even identify as such. Often, we don't get enough information to predict an orbit. If we do, the best we have is to hope to catch the object on a future obit on the track predicted. It's no wonder so many of the recent near-miss asteroids have only been detected when quite close.
Most of the work is done by amateur astronomers looking through public data. That's awesome, but it doesn't scale well.
If that concept had any merit, why is this the state of affairs in the Western world after practicing it for so many decades?
Quality of life seems to track directly with amount of freedom of speech, so I'm not sure what you're going on about?
I think you're upset that what makes most people happy isn't what makes you happy, and you want to force everyone else to change. Thing about dictatorships: you don't get to be the dictator. So what alternative do you propose? An autocratic system where you're banned from arguing against any position taken by the autocracy? You do realize those won't be positions that you like, right?
We need to use our freedoms to reduce the exposure of factually wrong and morally toxic ideas to the public
That didn't work out so well for the people when Mao, Stalin, and Hitler did it. Do you imagine it will be your ideas the next time around? Sorry, hate to break it to you, that's not how any of this works.
You arguing that being right is no substitute for being a good debater. I agree. But it's still loads easier when you're actually right. Much like it's easier to keep your story straight when you're telling the truth.
Seriously, who cares? People are going to pick and choose their sources to support their views. The implication of this "story" is more "wrong think" suppression, and that is far more dangerous than a few idiots not vaccinating.
It is interesting. If this is a common pattern (and I think it is), that means Facebook is the best place for an education campaign. This is a democracy with free speech (more or less) and we're not meant to solve problems of ignorance through government force or corporate censorship, but by winning in the marketplace of ideas.
Actually being right is a huge advantage in convincing people that you're right. The budget needed to drown Facebook in pro-Vax truth is tiny by government standards, especially if Facebook decides to give some free "air time" to the cause.
We're not good at detecting dangerous asteroids while they're still at any distance.
We don't have the capability to deliver any meaningful mass (hundreds of tons) to an asteroid at a sizable distance, especially if it's moving very fast relative to the Earth.
Even if we did solve those problems, it's almost always going to be better to give the whole asteroid a predictable nudge than to risk breaking it into random-sized pieces still mostly going the original direction. And the farther out the asteroid is, the more that's true, as the asteroids own gravity is going tend to bring all the pieces back to the same overall course (blowing something up doesn't necessarily change the direction the center of mass is going).
It's almost always going to be better to give the asteroid a shove than to try to blow bits of it off.
The difference is that the birdshot has a better chance to burn up in the atmosphere without anything reaching the ground at all.
For a large enough asteroid that doesn't actually help. The same total amount of energy is dumped into the atmosphere, and we all cook. It's hard to come up with a scenario where rolling the dice on breaking up an asteroid into an unknown number of pieces of unknown size and trajectory is a win. Perhaps if a mid-sized asteroid were going to hit the ocean (and we could somehow predict it that accurately), we might take the risk of random land hits to avoid the tsunami.
Burying a nuke does seem very silly. Using 1000 smaller nukes as a propulsion system is probably the best we've got. Of course, if we magically detect the problem far enough away, we could just attach a solar sail, but we don't have a good track record of identifying problem asteroids that far ahead.
You'd obviously have to tamp the nuke, and detonate it inside the asteroid. I think there was a movie about that, something about a deep sea drilling team. This recent study actually goes directly to that: the energy required to break up a large asteroid enough to matter is just too high.
However, if the goal is to re-direct an asteroid, instead of break it into gravel, nukes are a good fuel source. "Project Orion: style propulsion is really easy if the ship deosn't need to survive. It still might not be enough, but nuclear propulsion is much more efficient than chemical rockets, and we do have a bunch of warheads pre-made.
The challenge for any asteroid redirect plan is detecting the danger early enough (we still suck at that) and getting out there to try to shift the asteroid's course far enough away where a small change matters (we're even more hopeless there).
Really, the only chance we'd have today is if an asteroid was identified as making near pass or two, then hitting, so that we could try to change the asteroid's course as it passed by very near to the Earth (well, passed in some way where it was low delta-v to intercept, which "near" doesn't guarantee), and we had lots of time to prepare for that intercept.
There are definitely religious beliefs that reject modern medicine. It's a hard problem of the boundary of state power. It's really a bad road to start down having the government tell parents that they're wrong, but here they're so clearly wrong. It's not an easy situation for the courts.
You know that the UK, Denmark, Norway, & the Netherlands are kingdoms, don't you?
Funniest post all week. I live the fact that the Queen can just murder someone who annoys her, or nuke Canada on a whim, with no legal repercussions whatsoever. And it's a testament to her character that she doesn't abuse her power.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't that mean the wage gap that exists is even more of an issue?
Well, women who have the same seniority and work the same hours only make a little bit more than men, so the wage gap isn't too big of an issue right now.
Or did you mean to suggest that women should be paid the same as men even if they choose to work fewer hours, or choose less demanding work? Sort of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" sort of thing?
Over where? I don't think you actually live on Europa ...
The basis of my lawsuit is that I went to Playboy.com to read the great articles.
But those women were sexually assaulting me and creating a hostile environment by exposing their bodies on adjacent pages.
I think the real joke is that Playboy.com eliminated all nudes a few years back. They stopped offending the people who just wanted to read the fine article! Not sure how long that lasted.
Kudos to Doctor Noonien Soong for building the AI that settled the debate.
incitements to violence, for example
Only when there's an immediate and clear danger. You can exhort people to violence all you want, as long as it's abstract. That's because that's not a restriction on speech per se, it's the police stepping in to stop violence.
It may amount to government censorship at a public school. However most colleges are privately funded so there's no issue.
In the US, there are only a handful of universities that don't take government funding. And even the ones that don't: what value is there to society in a "university" that does not encourage free ad lively discussion of every idea? Not much.
Nearly as bad in your opinion, but legally worlds apart. Again, the alternatives are enforced common carrier status and forced speech. Choose.
The laws will probably change. There's a rising tide of sentiment on the right against corporate control, and is the left really going to stand up and defend corporations against individual rights?
I'd be delighted if Facebook were forced to choose between publisher (with liability) and common carrier (with no editorial discretion).
This is what the Western world's been doing for much of the late 20th century, and as you can see the bunk has been winning. Remember Einstein's definition of insanity?
The world does not move at internet speed.
Obviously we're not exerting enough influence! Why isn't the US imposing a 10% income tax on everyone in Canada? Athens had tribute totaling around 10x their GDP, back in the day. Why aren't we extorting tribute from everyone?
It's almost as if the USA is not being the biggest asshole it could be.
Sure, but what happens when they deploy their missle-missle-anti-anti-anti-missle-anti-anti missles?
Those were banned by the anit-anti-missile missive.
No one can threaten us with nukes today. And yet, I pay taxes. Why should I pay taxes when we can simply tax all foreigners living abroad? OK, maybe not France and Russia, since they have nukes and could try to get launchers working again, but everyone else!
Or, you know, as much fun as it would be to nuke Canada on a whim, maybe ethics hold us back?
I would bet it's a simple flip of a switch to let it off the leash.
Maybe so. But we also have actual nukes, if we stop caring about ethics.
What doesn't get mention about these "AI systems" is none of this is new. All these concerns were raised about missiles 50+ years ago. We have plenty of missiles that can fly way over the horizon, and kill "whatever" looks like a target.
The military has had doctrine for decades around this, and modern tactics assume it: lots of launchers over the horizon, but also something that can put human eyes on the target. Just to make sure it's not an civilian airliner, like that one time.
You can bet that in a high-intensity conflict the ROEs will change to "just kill every damn thing in that direction". I rather suspect the robotanks will be changed to berserker mode about then. Hopefully such conflicts won't be in civilian areas, but that too has happened before. Heck, we certainly got to the point in WWII that we stopped seeing civilian casualties as a downside. Humans are morally imperfect.
Sounds like a good plan, with the computer analysis. Good news is launch costs keep dropping.
That's such a small percentage it isn't even worth talking about.
Let's displace 4000 people, but 100 of them will be home owners so they will benefit.
Depends where you live. I've been through plenty of very poor neighborhoods that were all houses. Tiny houses built long ago, but still. That includes parts of the SF Bay Area.
For what? A 25% increase in a house that you still have 25 years to pay off?
More like 5x in some places. And you pay it off the moment you sell and pocket the difference. Still sucks to have to move, but if your $80k house becomes a $400k knockdown and you keep the $320k, that does soften the blow.
Gentrification is a concern of the poor, and for good reason: it fucks them out of their homes.
Correction: it fucks them out of the place their renting. The poor who own their house (more common than you may think) benefit from rising prices, and proportionally more so.
He who controls the AI, shall control the future.
That was certainly how the pronunciation of "data" was settled!
Don't worry too much about changing the minds of specific individuals. Instead, think about the drift of ideas between generations (the old definition of "memes" pre-2000). That is where the difference is made. You can't e.g. convince someone not to be racist, but you can change the statistical likelyhood of their kids being racist.
The "marketplace of ideas" does not equal free speech, they're different things.
I don't see the difference.
. The "marketplace of ideas" is the concept that it's beneficial (or at least harmless) to expose the public to a debate of terrible ideas and falsehoods. "Invite the nazi to speak at the college, we'll curb-stomp him with facts and reason and show everyone how wrong his ideas are, thus making the audience less supportive of nazi ideas" - that's the "marketplace of ideas."
Sounds like free speech. The alternative is "not free speech". Especially in modern times, when almost everyone is a "Nazi", at least by social media standards.
Don't let the nazi speak at your college,
Everyone you disagree with is a "Nazi" these days, so you're saying "don't let people you disagree with speak at a government-funded school. I don't see any daylight between that and government censorship.
don't allow anti-vax content on your social media platform, etc.
Censorship by effective monopolies that dominate public debate is nearly as bad as censorship by governments. Anyway, since when are "forbidden ideas" less attractive? I don't think the human mind works that way.
Debunk the bunk. Especially, do so in a way that kids of anti-vax parents get the full story.
It's not just the telescopes, though we do need a lot more of those. It takes quite a bit of effort to do the tracking. We don't have the ability to track every asteroid continuously, not even close. We typically get very temporary views of moving dots that are hard to even identify as such. Often, we don't get enough information to predict an orbit. If we do, the best we have is to hope to catch the object on a future obit on the track predicted. It's no wonder so many of the recent near-miss asteroids have only been detected when quite close.
Most of the work is done by amateur astronomers looking through public data. That's awesome, but it doesn't scale well.
If that concept had any merit, why is this the state of affairs in the Western world after practicing it for so many decades?
Quality of life seems to track directly with amount of freedom of speech, so I'm not sure what you're going on about?
I think you're upset that what makes most people happy isn't what makes you happy, and you want to force everyone else to change. Thing about dictatorships: you don't get to be the dictator. So what alternative do you propose? An autocratic system where you're banned from arguing against any position taken by the autocracy? You do realize those won't be positions that you like, right?
We need to use our freedoms to reduce the exposure of factually wrong and morally toxic ideas to the public
That didn't work out so well for the people when Mao, Stalin, and Hitler did it. Do you imagine it will be your ideas the next time around? Sorry, hate to break it to you, that's not how any of this works.
You arguing that being right is no substitute for being a good debater. I agree. But it's still loads easier when you're actually right. Much like it's easier to keep your story straight when you're telling the truth.
Seriously, who cares? People are going to pick and choose their sources to support their views. The implication of this "story" is more "wrong think" suppression, and that is far more dangerous than a few idiots not vaccinating.
It is interesting. If this is a common pattern (and I think it is), that means Facebook is the best place for an education campaign. This is a democracy with free speech (more or less) and we're not meant to solve problems of ignorance through government force or corporate censorship, but by winning in the marketplace of ideas.
Actually being right is a huge advantage in convincing people that you're right. The budget needed to drown Facebook in pro-Vax truth is tiny by government standards, especially if Facebook decides to give some free "air time" to the cause.
We're not good at detecting dangerous asteroids while they're still at any distance.
We don't have the capability to deliver any meaningful mass (hundreds of tons) to an asteroid at a sizable distance, especially if it's moving very fast relative to the Earth.
Even if we did solve those problems, it's almost always going to be better to give the whole asteroid a predictable nudge than to risk breaking it into random-sized pieces still mostly going the original direction. And the farther out the asteroid is, the more that's true, as the asteroids own gravity is going tend to bring all the pieces back to the same overall course (blowing something up doesn't necessarily change the direction the center of mass is going).
It's almost always going to be better to give the asteroid a shove than to try to blow bits of it off.
The difference is that the birdshot has a better chance to burn up in the atmosphere without anything reaching the ground at all.
For a large enough asteroid that doesn't actually help. The same total amount of energy is dumped into the atmosphere, and we all cook. It's hard to come up with a scenario where rolling the dice on breaking up an asteroid into an unknown number of pieces of unknown size and trajectory is a win. Perhaps if a mid-sized asteroid were going to hit the ocean (and we could somehow predict it that accurately), we might take the risk of random land hits to avoid the tsunami.
Burying a nuke does seem very silly. Using 1000 smaller nukes as a propulsion system is probably the best we've got. Of course, if we magically detect the problem far enough away, we could just attach a solar sail, but we don't have a good track record of identifying problem asteroids that far ahead.
You'd obviously have to tamp the nuke, and detonate it inside the asteroid. I think there was a movie about that, something about a deep sea drilling team. This recent study actually goes directly to that: the energy required to break up a large asteroid enough to matter is just too high.
However, if the goal is to re-direct an asteroid, instead of break it into gravel, nukes are a good fuel source. "Project Orion: style propulsion is really easy if the ship deosn't need to survive. It still might not be enough, but nuclear propulsion is much more efficient than chemical rockets, and we do have a bunch of warheads pre-made.
The challenge for any asteroid redirect plan is detecting the danger early enough (we still suck at that) and getting out there to try to shift the asteroid's course far enough away where a small change matters (we're even more hopeless there).
Really, the only chance we'd have today is if an asteroid was identified as making near pass or two, then hitting, so that we could try to change the asteroid's course as it passed by very near to the Earth (well, passed in some way where it was low delta-v to intercept, which "near" doesn't guarantee), and we had lots of time to prepare for that intercept.
It's mostly a case of "doesn't even work in KSP".
There are definitely religious beliefs that reject modern medicine. It's a hard problem of the boundary of state power. It's really a bad road to start down having the government tell parents that they're wrong, but here they're so clearly wrong. It's not an easy situation for the courts.
You know that the UK, Denmark, Norway, & the Netherlands are kingdoms, don't you?
Funniest post all week. I live the fact that the Queen can just murder someone who annoys her, or nuke Canada on a whim, with no legal repercussions whatsoever. And it's a testament to her character that she doesn't abuse her power.