... 55 countries that contribute a total of at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions
So, in effect, 55% of the countries should pollute more to get an agreement working to pollute less. And, off course, every country that does not wait for the agreement to take effect and starts pollution reduction now is spoiling it for the rest.
Stupid rules like this are why only politicians believe the climate agreement actually helps to achieve something.
The Dodos were perfectly adapted to their environment. In their environment, there was no need for them to run away. Then one Dutch ship came along, found those birds disgusting and wiped the entire species out - just for fun.
Among others. I read that the border between the Koreas is equipped with auto-firing machine guns. The funny thing is that these ethical guidelines show us clearly that we often want robots to overcome our own ethical boundaries. Another use of robots is sex toys. You bet that they will discriminate, and exactly how the user or manufacturer wants them to. Reading this article shows me that if there are ethical boundaries to be crossed, we often tend to approach them from the wrong side.
And goods, services, people and work have no exchange value?
Well, obviously, otherwise there was no economy. But if only one side determines the price (this is not equal to the value), it is nothing less than extortion. So don't mix economy with finance, and do not mix value with price. For example, the online casino that we call stock market offers no economic value at all, but has a huge financial impact. The fact that a real-economy bread is paid in the same currency as virtual-economy "futures" for grain that will never be planted is a huge problem. Seen from the bread that currency is worth something, and seen from the futures, it is worth nothing. Both are incompatible and just plain wrong and the situation is just waiting for a crisis to happen.
All I mean is that a prerequisite for changes (usually growth) is some kind of surplus.
No. The prerequisite for changes is a need for it. If you have really small communities, people learn to do everything themselves and hardly trade. Once the communities get larger, they see that some people are good at something and start dividing the work. Only in unmanageable societies you have the need for a common exchange thingy (=money). But if the money is not made by the society itself (or its representation), this opens up a big can of worms.
wasting opportunity by having people do things that machines could do better with the same input is suboptimal
Depends on the need and whether you like to do the job. Machines are by far better at taking a walk than I am. And if I use public transport to go to work, it saves me energy and I even don't have to pay attention to the road. But I rather use my bicycle. It pays off in a lot more things than just money.
even if the price is nation-wide economic inefficiency?
I don't think you mean what you say with this. economic means that it is about goods and services, people and work. financial is about money. So replacing humans with machines is a horrible thing to do economically, because more people get unemployed and if they hardly have an income, they cannot keep other people working either. The problem is off course that for one bloke at the top this pays off financially. Only if you believe the fairy tale of the "trickle down economy", you could say that there is an economic gain.
If you tax the 1% who do not pay taxes at all these days, you'd probably have more than enough to support the program.
What really would help would be if the government had the right to produce "positive" or "neutral" money. Now, central banks issue money as loans with the obligation of paying usury (the euphemism is "interest") and the money for this usury is never made. So in the end, central banks do not issue money, they only issue uncovered debt.
If a government could issue money (I know that is still possible in the USA, but not in the EU), they could inject it where it is needed and take it away again (through taxes, for example) where it is harmful. Current governments do exactly the opposite: the harmful accumulations are no longer taxed, and everyone else pays for it.
This is off course nothing but extortion. And yes, extortion brings in loads of money. That is no reason whatsoever to defend it. If forbidding the manufacturers extortion would land them into trouble, they are not manufacturers.
"Ubuntu" means "I am because you are", "Linux" is an open source operating system and a "forum" is a place where people get together. In other words, this is all about sharing. In this case they shared passwords, even without trying to. Your point is...?
It may not even have anything to do with food. Since lead was shown to be extremely toxic and therefore banned from gasoline, health should go up. It may be the air that we breathe that causes it.
As I read it, all the "digital bombers" are already over the country. The US have already attacked. If any country would do this to the US, the US would certainly see it that way.
It was long known that this new treaty was as flawed as the previous one. This means that another law suit is needed to overthrow it again. The European Commission feels it is only accountable to foreign countries and companies, not to actual European people. You can read more on New “Shield”, Old Problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Why isn't she in jail?
Because you do not seem to live in Bugarup:
Government officials in Bugarup are elected by the people and then put into prison to save time.
If only this could be done in the USA! The coming election is the best time ever.
I think "no ifs, no buts" means "no things between parentheses". And Lisp programmers should know...
... 55 countries that contribute a total of at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions
So, in effect, 55% of the countries should pollute more to get an agreement working to pollute less. And, off course, every country that does not wait for the agreement to take effect and starts pollution reduction now is spoiling it for the rest.
Stupid rules like this are why only politicians believe the climate agreement actually helps to achieve something.
That is not new. Many terrorist organizations also offer vertical take-off, especially in cars. The landing seems to be a bit of a bummer, though.
The Dodos were perfectly adapted to their environment. In their environment, there was no need for them to run away. Then one Dutch ship came along, found those birds disgusting and wiped the entire species out - just for fun.
the Allo team .. decided .. was worth giving up privacy benefits
That is not for the dev team to decide. Let the user decide it. But off course, this is Google. There Is No Such Thing As Privacy.
Among others. I read that the border between the Koreas is equipped with auto-firing machine guns. The funny thing is that these ethical guidelines show us clearly that we often want robots to overcome our own ethical boundaries. Another use of robots is sex toys. You bet that they will discriminate, and exactly how the user or manufacturer wants them to. Reading this article shows me that if there are ethical boundaries to be crossed, we often tend to approach them from the wrong side.
How many times do we have to say that 1984 was not an instruction manual?
I think it would get very quiet here...
And goods, services, people and work have no exchange value?
Well, obviously, otherwise there was no economy. But if only one side determines the price (this is not equal to the value), it is nothing less than extortion. So don't mix economy with finance, and do not mix value with price. For example, the online casino that we call stock market offers no economic value at all, but has a huge financial impact. The fact that a real-economy bread is paid in the same currency as virtual-economy "futures" for grain that will never be planted is a huge problem. Seen from the bread that currency is worth something, and seen from the futures, it is worth nothing. Both are incompatible and just plain wrong and the situation is just waiting for a crisis to happen.
All I mean is that a prerequisite for changes (usually growth) is some kind of surplus.
No. The prerequisite for changes is a need for it. If you have really small communities, people learn to do everything themselves and hardly trade. Once the communities get larger, they see that some people are good at something and start dividing the work. Only in unmanageable societies you have the need for a common exchange thingy (=money). But if the money is not made by the society itself (or its representation), this opens up a big can of worms.
wasting opportunity by having people do things that machines could do better with the same input is suboptimal
Depends on the need and whether you like to do the job. Machines are by far better at taking a walk than I am. And if I use public transport to go to work, it saves me energy and I even don't have to pay attention to the road. But I rather use my bicycle. It pays off in a lot more things than just money.
Couldn't Microsoft just send an e-mail to their last Skype user on Linux?
even if the price is nation-wide economic inefficiency?
I don't think you mean what you say with this. economic means that it is about goods and services, people and work. financial is about money. So replacing humans with machines is a horrible thing to do economically, because more people get unemployed and if they hardly have an income, they cannot keep other people working either. The problem is off course that for one bloke at the top this pays off financially. Only if you believe the fairy tale of the "trickle down economy", you could say that there is an economic gain.
Automated systems disrupt entire countries without being driven by financial gain or being otherwise power-hungry. I admit, that's kind of scary.
If you tax the 1% who do not pay taxes at all these days, you'd probably have more than enough to support the program.
What really would help would be if the government had the right to produce "positive" or "neutral" money. Now, central banks issue money as loans with the obligation of paying usury (the euphemism is "interest") and the money for this usury is never made. So in the end, central banks do not issue money, they only issue uncovered debt.
If a government could issue money (I know that is still possible in the USA, but not in the EU), they could inject it where it is needed and take it away again (through taxes, for example) where it is harmful. Current governments do exactly the opposite: the harmful accumulations are no longer taxed, and everyone else pays for it.
These fines should off course be paid in zero rupee notes.
Better put on that tinfoil hat too. And put a little ventilator on top of it to cool it. It might shield your body from the infra-red cameras...
This is off course nothing but extortion. And yes, extortion brings in loads of money. That is no reason whatsoever to defend it. If forbidding the manufacturers extortion would land them into trouble, they are not manufacturers.
"Ubuntu" means "I am because you are", "Linux" is an open source operating system and a "forum" is a place where people get together. In other words, this is all about sharing. In this case they shared passwords, even without trying to. Your point is ...?
Probably. But if it is successfully done, would you remember?
Study Shows Sucking and Boot-Licking Pays off for Politicians
It may not even have anything to do with food. Since lead was shown to be extremely toxic and therefore banned from gasoline, health should go up. It may be the air that we breathe that causes it.
As I read it, all the "digital bombers" are already over the country. The US have already attacked. If any country would do this to the US, the US would certainly see it that way.
It was long known that this new treaty was as flawed as the previous one. This means that another law suit is needed to overthrow it again. The European Commission feels it is only accountable to foreign countries and companies, not to actual European people. You can read more on New “Shield”, Old Problems.
... and you might be surprised (or not?) by which countries generate most searches for "animal sex porn" on Google Trends.
--
Ezekiel 23:20
Was that a Bible quote?
So basically, Watson is used for nothing more than speech to text conversion?
Off course. And deduction. It's elementary.