...Guaranteed minimum income.
It's the most humane way to integrate full automation into an economy without forcing tens of millions into abject poverty. We're going to have to provide them with welfare one way or another. So why not just provide everyone with the basics for living in this world and allow people to work for what they want beyond that? The key is to move beyond the societal stigma of joblessness.
Can you explain further where you are getting the 2006 number? Most of the studies seem to be recently up to date.
As for the Rutgers study. That is up to date to 2014. There is also a clear decrease in snow coverage. Maybe we're reading the chart differently. But there is a huge dip in 1990 of snow coverage and from then on the coverage never recovers to pre-1990 levels.
"personally have seen very little if any climate change during my short stay here while being very active outdoors including farming the land."
Well that settles it folks! Briniel stepped outside and everything seemed alright. We can all go home now and keep burning that oil and pumping out that CO2.
Oh wait, I just found this. Well nuts......sorry Briniel. It seems a few people traveled a bit further from their land and discovered that things aren't so cozy and calm.
http://climate.nasa.gov/eviden...
Yeah, I'm not buying that argument. Everyone makes it sound like it will be this wave type event. But I'm pretty confident that autonomous cars will take decades to attain any sort of market saturation to influence insurance rates in that fashion. All you have to do is look at the history of transportation to see this.
But's that's not what I'm talking about. People will not give up their ability to drive willingly. Not in the city and certainly not in the rural areas. Even with supposed higher insurance rates, people will still want to control their own cars outside of the highway commute scenario. IMO, I see this as a Silicon Valley bubble. Inside the bubble there is an animosity towards commuting and driving in general. It keeps them from seeing that a majority of the country actually enjoy driving. I live here and I see it every day. There is huge desire here to eliminate drivers because....well drivers here SUUUUUUCK.
There will never be autonomous cars on anything but highways and maybe city streets. In more rural areas, they will only be autonomous when you enter a highway infrastructure. There's no way any tech company will convince people to give up their ability to drive their own car at least some of the time.
It's probably the safest, yet more expensive ways to reduce the sun's energy hitting the earth. If we're smart enough, we could put a big programmable sun shade up there.
Who ever said anything about them going back to where they started? My comment was to imply that they should be creating a NEW Star Trek show with a new cast. Move forward from the old cast and the old story line.
I call B.S. on your B.S. Here in SF Uber and Lyft are ALWAYS comparable in price to a standard taxis service. $60 to the airport for both taxi and Uber. $20 from downtown financial district to GG Park. It makes me wonder how much they gouge high density areas.
How can anyone argue that black holes don't exist? I mean we've tracked stars at the center of our galaxy orbiting something at extreme speeds. We've never seen electrons, but we've all but confirmed their existence by how they interact with our environment.
Not sure what nasty links you've been clicking on. But the reason I use Gmail and have dumped the Yahoo's and Hotmails of the world is because I get ZERO spam......none, nada. Seriously, how did this become a post on Slashdot?
Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity, Civilization, Banner Saga, FTL, GTA V, Skyrim, Fallout (all of them), ALL my iPad games, Stick of Truth, Torchlight, Banish......ETC.
Basically, if you pull your gaze away from the "AAA" titles, you'll find a plethora of compelling and fun single player games.
So you affect change by doing studies that point fingers in random directions hoping to shame someone into giving you equality? Why not base yourself in reality first and then tackle the problem? No, you can't wait for actual lasting change. You want your change now, created on a very weak foundation that just instills resentment and resistance to change. Then you'll wonder why it came crashing down at the slightest push. No, I'm not a defeatist, I'm a realist who knows that change takes lots of time and lots of work. Maybe one day you'll come around to this but I doubt it.
How about we consider the thousands of years that women have been subjugated as the real reason. It just recently became acceptable for a women to pursue interests that were traditionally male dominated. I remember as a kid, my best friends sister would love hanging out with us when we played video games and worked with the old IBM PC. But her dad was constantly telling her to get back to her Barbies and leave the boys alone. Weeding out this kind of institutional repression takes generations. The big tech companies can try as best they can to lure more women into the field, but as long as there are fathers out there frowning upon their daughters not doing little girl things, the less women there will be who take an interest in tech.
A scientist who doesn't consider all paths to solving a problem is not a very good scientist. Let me emphasise.....CONSIDER all paths. To ignore geoengineering as a possible solution to what is happening NOW would be foolish and irresponsible.
Slashdot Mirror
...Guaranteed minimum income. It's the most humane way to integrate full automation into an economy without forcing tens of millions into abject poverty. We're going to have to provide them with welfare one way or another. So why not just provide everyone with the basics for living in this world and allow people to work for what they want beyond that? The key is to move beyond the societal stigma of joblessness.
Can you explain further where you are getting the 2006 number? Most of the studies seem to be recently up to date. As for the Rutgers study. That is up to date to 2014. There is also a clear decrease in snow coverage. Maybe we're reading the chart differently. But there is a huge dip in 1990 of snow coverage and from then on the coverage never recovers to pre-1990 levels.
"personally have seen very little if any climate change during my short stay here while being very active outdoors including farming the land." Well that settles it folks! Briniel stepped outside and everything seemed alright. We can all go home now and keep burning that oil and pumping out that CO2. Oh wait, I just found this. Well nuts......sorry Briniel. It seems a few people traveled a bit further from their land and discovered that things aren't so cozy and calm. http://climate.nasa.gov/eviden...
Yeah, I'm not buying that argument. Everyone makes it sound like it will be this wave type event. But I'm pretty confident that autonomous cars will take decades to attain any sort of market saturation to influence insurance rates in that fashion. All you have to do is look at the history of transportation to see this. But's that's not what I'm talking about. People will not give up their ability to drive willingly. Not in the city and certainly not in the rural areas. Even with supposed higher insurance rates, people will still want to control their own cars outside of the highway commute scenario. IMO, I see this as a Silicon Valley bubble. Inside the bubble there is an animosity towards commuting and driving in general. It keeps them from seeing that a majority of the country actually enjoy driving. I live here and I see it every day. There is huge desire here to eliminate drivers because....well drivers here SUUUUUUCK.
There will never be autonomous cars on anything but highways and maybe city streets. In more rural areas, they will only be autonomous when you enter a highway infrastructure. There's no way any tech company will convince people to give up their ability to drive their own car at least some of the time.
Sure sounds like hey have no interest in making anymore HL games. That's a damn shame.
It's probably the safest, yet more expensive ways to reduce the sun's energy hitting the earth. If we're smart enough, we could put a big programmable sun shade up there.
Who ever said anything about them going back to where they started? My comment was to imply that they should be creating a NEW Star Trek show with a new cast. Move forward from the old cast and the old story line.
Ummm, no.
Star Trek always looked forward, never backwards. As long as they keep on with this retread, Star Trek is dead to me.
Star Trek has been dead to me since J.J. took over and "rebooted" the whole thing. No big loss here.
Why waste time on Anonymous Coward?
The are absolutely not.
I call B.S. on your B.S. Here in SF Uber and Lyft are ALWAYS comparable in price to a standard taxis service. $60 to the airport for both taxi and Uber. $20 from downtown financial district to GG Park. It makes me wonder how much they gouge high density areas.
How can anyone argue that black holes don't exist? I mean we've tracked stars at the center of our galaxy orbiting something at extreme speeds. We've never seen electrons, but we've all but confirmed their existence by how they interact with our environment.
The team fully expects Philae to get more light early next year. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol...
This is just silly.
Not sure what nasty links you've been clicking on. But the reason I use Gmail and have dumped the Yahoo's and Hotmails of the world is because I get ZERO spam......none, nada. Seriously, how did this become a post on Slashdot?
It's "regardless". When you say "irregardless" I can't take what you say seriously, no matter how correct you may be.
3 of them are. :)
But I included them to make a point that single player AAA games are VERY successful.
Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity, Civilization, Banner Saga, FTL, GTA V, Skyrim, Fallout (all of them), ALL my iPad games, Stick of Truth, Torchlight, Banish......ETC. Basically, if you pull your gaze away from the "AAA" titles, you'll find a plethora of compelling and fun single player games.
Didn't need it, but thanks for butting in anyways.
So you affect change by doing studies that point fingers in random directions hoping to shame someone into giving you equality? Why not base yourself in reality first and then tackle the problem? No, you can't wait for actual lasting change. You want your change now, created on a very weak foundation that just instills resentment and resistance to change. Then you'll wonder why it came crashing down at the slightest push. No, I'm not a defeatist, I'm a realist who knows that change takes lots of time and lots of work. Maybe one day you'll come around to this but I doubt it.
How about we consider the thousands of years that women have been subjugated as the real reason. It just recently became acceptable for a women to pursue interests that were traditionally male dominated. I remember as a kid, my best friends sister would love hanging out with us when we played video games and worked with the old IBM PC. But her dad was constantly telling her to get back to her Barbies and leave the boys alone. Weeding out this kind of institutional repression takes generations. The big tech companies can try as best they can to lure more women into the field, but as long as there are fathers out there frowning upon their daughters not doing little girl things, the less women there will be who take an interest in tech.
A scientist who doesn't consider all paths to solving a problem is not a very good scientist. Let me emphasise.....CONSIDER all paths. To ignore geoengineering as a possible solution to what is happening NOW would be foolish and irresponsible.