It's estimated to be $200,000 per plane for live tracking. "Billons" would be a huge exaggeration.
That's 5000 planes per one billion. There are almost one thousand Boeing 777s in operation today. Add in all other comparable, i.e. long range aircraft (757, 747, 787 plus the Airbus equivalents) and you are quickly into the (very low admittedly) billions.
Remember, those who do not vaccinate their children put their children at risk, but these are THEIR children, not 'ours'.
This is simply not correct. There are a number reasons some children can not be vaccinated, including allergies and other health problems. Generally, if vaccinations are widespread, those that can not be vaccinated will benefit from the herd immunity afforded by general vaccination. When the number of non-vaccinated kids goes up, the effect of the herd immunity goes down putting the children that can not be vaccinated at risk.
I don't give a flying fuck who invaded. Starting a nuclear war over some local pissing contest is NOT an option.
What is to you a "local pissing contest" is to the Ukrainians a foreign invasion.
How would you feel if Putin had decided that Alaska should really go back to Russia and sent troops there? That is exactly what has happened in the Ukraine.
Why should gas infrastructure be public when surely it isn't as critical, or at least no more so, than food, water, medicine, logistics, drilling for oil?
If a grocery store isn't doing a good job it will likely go out of business. Setting up a new grocery store is fairly simple and doesn't require much capital.
Now compare that to setting up a competing gas infrastructure.
It's not about "being in the public good" per se. But being of an inherently monopolistic nature. Private gas infrastructure makes about as much sense as private road infrastructure.
Actually, they are. If you want to limit it to 'necessary jobs' only, those are finite, but already most of us don't do necessary jobs. We've expanded beyond that.
That implies that human appetites are infinite (as someone must be willing to pay for the work). I'm not quite on board with that.
That's no easier to prove than the assertion that jobs are disappearing.
Us humans have considerable appetites, but they are not infinite. We only require so much living space, clothing, food or entertainment. If automation continues to improve productivity there will come a time when the labor of some fraction of the population is capable of fully satisfying every human being alive. The only question is at what point does that happen.
It will happen a lot sooner if you define it as "fully satisfying all basic needs". But if we ever crack real AI, the only constraining factor on what we can provide each individual will be energy, not human labor.
This tipping point may be centuries in the future or it may be a few decades away and we're seeing the start of it. It's impossible to tell until after the fact. But denying that it can ever happen isn't helping. Increased automation will inevitable lead to the redundancy of human labor if automation continues to grow unbounded.
There is, of course, the possibility that automation will stop growing for some, as yet, unknown reason.
TL;DR We can't know how much of an issue automation replacing human labor will be. But blithely ignoring the issue isn't helpful.
You are forgetting another deflationary pressure on bitcoin; increased adoption. As more people want to use bitcoins the demand for them goes up. Demand goes up, so does the price of bitcoins and thus the commodities prices expressed in bitcoins go down. Deflation.
Given how little bitcoins are actually used today this is a very significant hurdle to more widespread use.
That would be like $.17 (seventeen cents) from a normal person's pocket, right?
Actually, assuming the average person earns about fifty thousand dollars a year, a comparable amount would be 17 dollars, not 17 cents. This is easy to see as Google's 2012 revenue was about 50 thousand million (i.e. 50 billion) dollars.
Aside from the chuckle I get from visiting geocities pages once a decade, what reasons are there for helping to preserve it?
Is the preservation of old internet sites anything more than a curiousity that will end up in museums? Is it useful to the human race in some way?
Is the preservation of old manuscripts anything more than a curiousity that will end up in museums?
Is the preservation of old books anything more than a curiousity that will end up in museums?
Is the preservation of old newspapers anything more than a curiousity that will end up in museums?
Is the preservation of old films anything more than a curiousity that will end up in museums?
The internet is just the latest evolution of information sharing. We've found (often the hard way) that information is generally worth preserving. While a lot of what is on the Internet today will never be of interest to anyone, it is impossible to guess very accurately at what will be of interest. Often the things no one thought had any long term value at the time of their creation, wind up being the most valuable to future generations of researchers.
I thinks the reason this is being revised is because this rule has inconvenienced people that have the power to do something about it (e.g. US senators). I'm sure airport security screening would be greatly improved if everyone, with no exceptions, had to go through the same type of screening.
non-complying browsers declared illegal as circumvention tools.
That is a bit of a stretch. If the non-compliance is simply a case of not supporting the DRM part of the spec (or doing so incorrectly/not in full), that does not aid in circumvention as the DRM content simply will not play.
It would require conscious effort to make a browser that could be classified as a circumvention tool.
This is an important distinction you make. The ECHR did not hold new websites liable for readers' comments, as the title would have you believe. It merely ruled that a national law (Estonian in this case) that did so was not in violation of human rights.
This means that websites in other European countries that recognize the authority of the ECHR will not be need to worry about this unless there is a similar national law in place.
and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put out...but that doesn't mean it's right.
Look, I'm all for piracy. But whether it increases sales is irrelevant.
This is a false equivalency.
The laws against rape are most assuredly not because rape makes women "less likely to put out" (as you put it). The laws against rape are in place because the act of rape causes the victim to experience extreme emotional (and potentially also physical) pain. It is a very primal violation of the victims person. That is why it is illegal. The effects of rape on "women putting out" is entirely irrelevant.
The laws against copyright infringement are, on the other hand, explicitly in place to ensure that copyright holders can make a profit on their works. The only possible harm of copyright infringement is loss of income. If it can be demonstrated that non-profit driven piracy, engaged in on an individual basis, does not harm, but actually boosts profits of the works, then it is clear that the law needs to be tailored so as to not criminalize behavior that is non-detrimental.
Links to the WBM contain the original URL and a timestamp so it would be easy to redirect it. The issue is however unlikely to come up as Wayback links are meant to be long-term stable. They've already survived one complete rewrite of the underlying application.
What is most likely to happen under extreme automation and AI is that the robots will grow our food, cut our hair, mine the land, drive our cars and take care of us...and humanity can just sit back and relax forever.
I guess the question is, will they do that for everyone or just the "top 1%"? I suspect (and fear) that it will take a war or two to settle that question. Hopefully the question will remain relevant in the aftermath.
One of the first adopters of automation will be the service sector. Imagine being able to remove the employee costs at a McDonalds by presenting a display of items to the consumer who selects his choices and then waits a few minutes for the food to pop out of a window.
Automats were one of the early "robotic" systems in service. Now that we have NFC and "wave your card at the cash register" payments, there is no reason for them not to come back in big style. Especially if costs can be cut and there are a lot of people out of work because larger scale automated systems have made them redundant. It's nice to walk into a Subway and have a low-paid "sandwich specialist" make your sandwich to order, but in the long run it will be a choice between paying for personal service like that at full price or being able to eat at all.
Exactly. You can already see the beginnings of this in certain fast food places in high wage countries (e.g. Denmark). So far it is only the cashier part that is automated, the food is still prepared by humans, but it is only a matter of time until automation moves in on that.
I have been wondering what sort of improvements might make Lunar orbit tourism a thing instead. It's only a 3-day ride, and I suspect passage around the dark side of the moon would still be an incredible thing given that, what, about 30 people maximum have ever been there?
27 to be exact. Apollo 8 and 10 through 17 each sent 3 astronauts into lunar orbit. Apollo 7 and 9 stayed in Earth orbit conducting tests. Apollo 1-6 were unmanned.
IIRC Wikileaks was initially releasing the documents a bit at a time, working with journalists to, among other things, redact anything that might put anyone in danger. It was only when the US government started attacking Wikileaks on every available front (forcing CC processor to stop taking donation, getting Assange extradited etc.) that the entire thing was made public.
I suspect that if the US government had accepted the leak as fait accompli and honestly tried to work with Wikileaks to redact information that could cause actual harm to informants etc. they could have significantly limited the damage. None of this would have prevented them from prosecuting Manning, btw.
But no, instead of trying to ensure that reporters of leaks (Wikileaks included) acted responsibly, the US government decided that those reporting on leaks were criminals themselves. That is complete nonsense and a dangerous attack on western democracy.
I'm unsure if Manning deserves to spend time in prison for his actions. I am sure that the US government has done things in response to Manning's actions that are way worse.
2) Copyright should be non-transferable and belong to the artist producing the work.
This would make collaborative works (e.g. film and tv) pretty much impossible. After all, who is the 'artist' behind a movie like From Russia With Love?
Is it the original author Ian Flemming? (Hardly, although the story is mostly lifted from the book) Is it the screenwriter Richard Maibaum? (Again, hardly, he based is work on Flemmings, and Johanna Harwood and Berkely Mather both contributed to the work). Is it the director Terence Young? (Directors often get the 'Film by' credit and are hugely important, but they aren't the sole 'artist' involved) What about the actors? (Surely they are artist and make direct contributions to the eventual production) Then there is the musical score. Set design. Etc.
Without the ability to have these artists producing work-for-hire, it would be next to impossible to produce either movies or tv. The idea that you would have to go to ALL of these people every time you wanted to license the film for a new market/format etc. is ludicrous.
Slashdot Mirror
It's estimated to be $200,000 per plane for live tracking. "Billons" would be a huge exaggeration.
That's 5000 planes per one billion. There are almost one thousand Boeing 777s in operation today. Add in all other comparable, i.e. long range aircraft (757, 747, 787 plus the Airbus equivalents) and you are quickly into the (very low admittedly) billions.
Remember, those who do not vaccinate their children put their children at risk, but these are THEIR children, not 'ours'.
This is simply not correct. There are a number reasons some children can not be vaccinated, including allergies and other health problems. Generally, if vaccinations are widespread, those that can not be vaccinated will benefit from the herd immunity afforded by general vaccination. When the number of non-vaccinated kids goes up, the effect of the herd immunity goes down putting the children that can not be vaccinated at risk.
I don't give a flying fuck who invaded. Starting a nuclear war over some local pissing contest is NOT an option.
What is to you a "local pissing contest" is to the Ukrainians a foreign invasion.
How would you feel if Putin had decided that Alaska should really go back to Russia and sent troops there? That is exactly what has happened in the Ukraine.
Atleast from IE9 onwards (OK and IE8 a bit) they started to notice that standards are a good thing
No, they just stopped being able to ignore standards due to their shrinking market share.
Why should gas infrastructure be public when surely it isn't as critical, or at least no more so, than food, water, medicine, logistics, drilling for oil?
If a grocery store isn't doing a good job it will likely go out of business. Setting up a new grocery store is fairly simple and doesn't require much capital.
Now compare that to setting up a competing gas infrastructure.
It's not about "being in the public good" per se. But being of an inherently monopolistic nature. Private gas infrastructure makes about as much sense as private road infrastructure.
Jobs are not infinite in number,
Actually, they are. If you want to limit it to 'necessary jobs' only, those are finite, but already most of us don't do necessary jobs. We've expanded beyond that.
That implies that human appetites are infinite (as someone must be willing to pay for the work). I'm not quite on board with that.
... the amount of potential work is limitless.
Is it?
That's no easier to prove than the assertion that jobs are disappearing.
Us humans have considerable appetites, but they are not infinite. We only require so much living space, clothing, food or entertainment. If automation continues to improve productivity there will come a time when the labor of some fraction of the population is capable of fully satisfying every human being alive. The only question is at what point does that happen.
It will happen a lot sooner if you define it as "fully satisfying all basic needs". But if we ever crack real AI, the only constraining factor on what we can provide each individual will be energy, not human labor.
This tipping point may be centuries in the future or it may be a few decades away and we're seeing the start of it. It's impossible to tell until after the fact. But denying that it can ever happen isn't helping. Increased automation will inevitable lead to the redundancy of human labor if automation continues to grow unbounded.
There is, of course, the possibility that automation will stop growing for some, as yet, unknown reason.
TL;DR We can't know how much of an issue automation replacing human labor will be. But blithely ignoring the issue isn't helpful.
You are forgetting another deflationary pressure on bitcoin; increased adoption. As more people want to use bitcoins the demand for them goes up. Demand goes up, so does the price of bitcoins and thus the commodities prices expressed in bitcoins go down. Deflation.
Given how little bitcoins are actually used today this is a very significant hurdle to more widespread use.
$17M to g00gle
That would be like $.17 (seventeen cents) from a normal person's pocket, right?
Actually, assuming the average person earns about fifty thousand dollars a year, a comparable amount would be 17 dollars, not 17 cents. This is easy to see as Google's 2012 revenue was about 50 thousand million (i.e. 50 billion) dollars.
Aside from the chuckle I get from visiting geocities pages once a decade, what reasons are there for helping to preserve it?
Is the preservation of old internet sites anything more than a curiousity that will end up in museums? Is it useful to the human race in some way?
Is the preservation of old manuscripts anything more than a curiousity that will end up in museums?
Is the preservation of old books anything more than a curiousity that will end up in museums?
Is the preservation of old newspapers anything more than a curiousity that will end up in museums?
Is the preservation of old films anything more than a curiousity that will end up in museums?
The internet is just the latest evolution of information sharing. We've found (often the hard way) that information is generally worth preserving. While a lot of what is on the Internet today will never be of interest to anyone, it is impossible to guess very accurately at what will be of interest. Often the things no one thought had any long term value at the time of their creation, wind up being the most valuable to future generations of researchers.
Unlike the ancient library of Alexandria, IA has offsite backups of everything. So, no, this is nothing at all like that.
More and more I find myself being forced to stay with older software because all the newest stuff is a big steaming pile of shit.
Unfortunately, it has also been my experience that new != improved when it comes to software these days.
I thinks the reason this is being revised is because this rule has inconvenienced people that have the power to do something about it (e.g. US senators). I'm sure airport security screening would be greatly improved if everyone, with no exceptions, had to go through the same type of screening.
non-complying browsers declared illegal as circumvention tools.
That is a bit of a stretch. If the non-compliance is simply a case of not supporting the DRM part of the spec (or doing so incorrectly/not in full), that does not aid in circumvention as the DRM content simply will not play.
It would require conscious effort to make a browser that could be classified as a circumvention tool.
This is an important distinction you make. The ECHR did not hold new websites liable for readers' comments, as the title would have you believe. It merely ruled that a national law (Estonian in this case) that did so was not in violation of human rights.
This means that websites in other European countries that recognize the authority of the ECHR will not be need to worry about this unless there is a similar national law in place.
and maybe rape makes woman more likely to put out ...but that doesn't mean it's right.
Look, I'm all for piracy. But whether it increases sales is irrelevant.
This is a false equivalency.
The laws against rape are most assuredly not because rape makes women "less likely to put out" (as you put it). The laws against rape are in place because the act of rape causes the victim to experience extreme emotional (and potentially also physical) pain. It is a very primal violation of the victims person. That is why it is illegal. The effects of rape on "women putting out" is entirely irrelevant.
The laws against copyright infringement are, on the other hand, explicitly in place to ensure that copyright holders can make a profit on their works. The only possible harm of copyright infringement is loss of income. If it can be demonstrated that non-profit driven piracy, engaged in on an individual basis, does not harm, but actually boosts profits of the works, then it is clear that the law needs to be tailored so as to not criminalize behavior that is non-detrimental.
Or in other words; when reality and their believes are in conflict, it is reality that must have gotten it wrong. Yes, that sounds about right.
Links to the WBM contain the original URL and a timestamp so it would be easy to redirect it. The issue is however unlikely to come up as Wayback links are meant to be long-term stable. They've already survived one complete rewrite of the underlying application.
What is most likely to happen under extreme automation and AI is that the robots will grow our food, cut our hair, mine the land, drive our cars and take care of us...and humanity can just sit back and relax forever.
I guess the question is, will they do that for everyone or just the "top 1%"? I suspect (and fear) that it will take a war or two to settle that question. Hopefully the question will remain relevant in the aftermath.
One of the first adopters of automation will be the service sector. Imagine being able to remove the employee costs at a McDonalds by presenting a display of items to the consumer who selects his choices and then waits a few minutes for the food to pop out of a window.
Automats were one of the early "robotic" systems in service. Now that we have NFC and "wave your card at the cash register" payments, there is no reason for them not to come back in big style. Especially if costs can be cut and there are a lot of people out of work because larger scale automated systems have made them redundant. It's nice to walk into a Subway and have a low-paid "sandwich specialist" make your sandwich to order, but in the long run it will be a choice between paying for personal service like that at full price or being able to eat at all.
Exactly. You can already see the beginnings of this in certain fast food places in high wage countries (e.g. Denmark). So far it is only the cashier part that is automated, the food is still prepared by humans, but it is only a matter of time until automation moves in on that.
27 to be exact
Bleh, scratch that. The real number is 24.
James Lowell flew on Apollo 8 and 13.
John Young flew on Apollo 10 and 16.
Eugene Cernan flew on Apollo 10 and 17.
So in total, 27 trips have been taken around the moon, by 24 men.
I have been wondering what sort of improvements might make Lunar orbit tourism a thing instead. It's only a 3-day ride, and I suspect passage around the dark side of the moon would still be an incredible thing given that, what, about 30 people maximum have ever been there?
27 to be exact. Apollo 8 and 10 through 17 each sent 3 astronauts into lunar orbit. Apollo 7 and 9 stayed in Earth orbit conducting tests. Apollo 1-6 were unmanned.
IIRC Wikileaks was initially releasing the documents a bit at a time, working with journalists to, among other things, redact anything that might put anyone in danger. It was only when the US government started attacking Wikileaks on every available front (forcing CC processor to stop taking donation, getting Assange extradited etc.) that the entire thing was made public.
I suspect that if the US government had accepted the leak as fait accompli and honestly tried to work with Wikileaks to redact information that could cause actual harm to informants etc. they could have significantly limited the damage. None of this would have prevented them from prosecuting Manning, btw.
But no, instead of trying to ensure that reporters of leaks (Wikileaks included) acted responsibly, the US government decided that those reporting on leaks were criminals themselves. That is complete nonsense and a dangerous attack on western democracy.
I'm unsure if Manning deserves to spend time in prison for his actions. I am sure that the US government has done things in response to Manning's actions that are way worse.
This, of course, is completely insane. The voter should decide their own preferences, even if that is somewhat harder to count.
2) Copyright should be non-transferable and belong to the artist producing the work.
This would make collaborative works (e.g. film and tv) pretty much impossible. After all, who is the 'artist' behind a movie like From Russia With Love?
Is it the original author Ian Flemming? (Hardly, although the story is mostly lifted from the book)
Is it the screenwriter Richard Maibaum? (Again, hardly, he based is work on Flemmings, and Johanna Harwood and Berkely Mather both contributed to the work).
Is it the director Terence Young? (Directors often get the 'Film by' credit and are hugely important, but they aren't the sole 'artist' involved)
What about the actors? (Surely they are artist and make direct contributions to the eventual production)
Then there is the musical score.
Set design.
Etc.
Without the ability to have these artists producing work-for-hire, it would be next to impossible to produce either movies or tv. The idea that you would have to go to ALL of these people every time you wanted to license the film for a new market/format etc. is ludicrous.