Dawkins help us if they ever find out how much they have in common and stop shooting each other.
Doesn't matter if they find out how much they have in common, they all believe that their specific belief is the right one and everyone else are the spawn of satan, ie. the situation will get even more polarized if they compare notes.
It is very close to the 'insurance' that the mafia sells.
I doubt that ABP threatens the ad-agencies with smashing their knees in or burning down their business, although sometimes I feel that would be an appropriate response to some of the ads I've seen.
If you are going to quote the original article by cut'n'paste a blurb, FFS make sure you fix the encoded entities. It looks so frigging amateurish when you don't.
This is nothing more than a sophisticated from of "everybody else is doing it" argument that you get from small children. If the rules aren't working, the solution is to either enforce the rules better or to change the rules. Having everybody ignore the rules and not change them is the worst possible outcome. It creates a situation where things simply can't get better. Nobody can know the real effect of properly enforced rules so there's no data that can be used for improvement of the rules. What we need is better enforcement for human drivers. It's almost inexcusable that neither cars (nor trains) have automatic speed control systems that prevent exceeding the limit. Invariably somebody will point out the fantastical corner case where accelerating and swerving makes sense but those can be easily solved.
You sir, are part of the problem and not the solution. For one thing, it is perfectly reasonable and acceptable to exceed the speed limit in order to safely merge into traffic. If you end up directly next to a car and need to merge then you have two options. One is to speed up and one is to slow down. If you're already going the speed limit then the safest option is not to slow down. You can see in front of you and next to you much more clearly than behind you. So why would you stick to a strict interpretation of the speed limit in order to merge? It's more dangerous than speeding up a few miles per hour, pulling into the gap you can see, and then driving the speed limit. Your inflexibility on the road is unsafe for yourself and everyone around you.
In fact, your strict enforcement of the rules is very difficult in the state of California. The state has a 'basic speed law' for any road with a speed limit under 55MPH. If you are not exceeding 55MPH then you may drive any speed that is safe for the road conditions (certain exceptions apply). So an autonomous car that strictly follows the speed limit could very much be a problem in situations where the basic speed law applies. Roadways are very fluid and dynamic environments. You have to have some leeway. Sometimes you need to be a little more aggressive. Sometimes you need to be a little more cautious. So yes, these autonomous cars should be able to temporarily ignore certain rules in order to increase safety. Of course, these autonomous vehicles can see behind them much more clearly than a human so the same safety guidelines may not apply to them as apply to humans.
If you had read the bolded part and it's implications you would have discovered that your reply was unnecessary.
What he/she is saying is that by changing the rules to encompass situations you describe, an autonomous vehicle would never have to break any rules. Having an autonomous vehicle which bend or break the rules in certain situations is a sure recipe for accidents and getting sued into oblivion.
In other words, the traffic laws needs to be updated to take into consideration autonomous vehicles. As with all other emerging tech we have laws and regulations that are lagging behind and in some cases they are totally obsolete.
If you get more than 320 posts on a day in your feed you either have a couple of friends that has nothing better to do than post/sharing junk on facebook OR you have nothing better to do and are friending everyone or subscribing to anything that crosses your path.
It does not matter how a farmer, a forester, or a gardener's seed or plants become contaminated with GMOs; whether through cross pollination, pollen blowing in the wind, by bees, direct seed movement or seed transportation, the growers no longer own their seeds or plants under patent law, they becomes Monsanto's property.
Monsantos GMO-crops has already cross-pollinated ordinary crops years ago, the result was a farmer being sued and had to battle Monsanto in court for years.
She says she doesn't trust Microsoft with her information, but Google? She approves of them faithfully
Why didn't you include the whole quote from the post:
My views of Microsoft and Google are pretty much diametrically opposed -- I have enormous faith in Google and Googlers doing the right thing with respect to protecting the data I share with them,
but even in the case of Google -- with whom I share a great deal of data -- I'm selective about what I do share.
But I guess all you really wanted to do, was to spin it so she looked foolish (just look what you used as a title for your post) -- which tells me you aren't here to have a constructive discussion and I cannot fathom why ANYONE would mod your post as insightful.
So what is an acceptable probability (cost/benefit wise) for a loss of one life? So what is an acceptable probability (cost/benefit wise) for a loss of 1 million lives? So what is an acceptable probability (cost/benefit wise) for a loss of an animal species? So what is an acceptable probability (cost/benefit wise) for a loss of an insect species? So what is an acceptable probability (cost/benefit wise) for a minimum 10% loss of viability in biomes?
I can go on, but you get my point. Of course economics play a huge role in how to tackle it, but the economics of not tackle it doesn't look good at all.
End the end, the ones usually doing the cost/benefit analysis is also the ones holding the purse...
Uhm, but there is no real consensus what the magnitude of the possible problem is. When lives are at stake you mostly plan for the worst case scenario, unless you are a cynic of course.
And I'm far more concerned that we choose wrongly and the whole climate becomes counter-productive which means we only will have one goal: survive.
Not really, since if there is no man made climate change we at least need to clean up our environment anyway. If on the other hand the skeptics are wrong and they win the argument humanity is up shit creek and it's going to cost a ton of money and lives in the near future.
So, to be on the safe side isn't it better to deal with a possible man made climate change now regardless of it's true or not?
I'm not advocating we use misleading "advertisements", I'm advocating that with the same education you can do more than you think and that message has to be clear, and even more so if you want to attract women to engineering that has the cultural stereotype of being a job for men.
I really don't think that the courses need to change, as I said in my first post it's all about how you sell it and if the stated goals of the curriculum indicates societal beneficial engineering knowledge you will get more women to apply even though there is no change to the curriculum itself.
Where do you get that the goal is to get a 50/50 gender-balance? You read 50/50 and assumed that was the goal. What they did was to showcase an example where they made a new program geared at societal meaningfulness which garnered a 50/50 balance.
And the conclusion was that you can increase the number of females in engineering by changing or rephrasing the goal of the curriculum, ie. "Learn engineering and save lives" vs. "Learn engineering and design a reverse osmosis plant".
I see a lot of negative comments about the op-ed. I really don't get it though. A lot of posters complain that it's wrong to alter the curriculum so you can attract more female students, that it's all liberal or/and feminine hogwash.
Most universities tweak their curriculum so they are up to date and attract more students that way. So what is so wrong with making a curriculum more attractive to women? We are not talking about excluding males here, but if you feel that way maybe your ego is a bit fragile.
The whole op-ed it can be summarized in one question: Do male engineers want to work with more female engineers? If yes, make the curriculum more attractive to women. You don't even need to change the curriculum, you only need to change the description so it shows what good engineering can do for society. It most instances, it's how you describe something that makes a sale.
So you say that Netflix as a company shouldn't try to get the best deal they can they can when signing with an ISP? Interesting theory...
Any ISP signing a contract with Netflix should realize what a bandwidth hog Netflix is. If that incurs extra costs for the ISP it's THEIR problem. If someone downstream throttles Netflix because users on that ISP uses a lot of bandwidth it's still not Netflix problem, the users ISP has oversold their available bandwidth.
It's a fact that the internet provider market in the US lacks competition and is more or less monopolistic or duopolist with hints of cartel agreements. When a market is dysfunctional in that way someone has to step in and sort the mess out since it's obvious the market wasn't interested in fixing it.
And by the tone in your post you rather have a dysfunctional internet provider market that abuse and gouges it's customers every day than some weak regulation that will at least try to fix the worst problems.
And FYI, it's because of progressive world views that we have a modern society but you are welcome to stay in the past while moaning about the progressives wanting progress (because without progress things stagnate).
What if you take photos of you flying a drone and a magazine buys the right to use your photos in their magazine, does that constitute commercial use?
If someone makes a painting of you flying a drone and then you sell the painting, does that constitute commercial use?
Both examples above would constitute commercial use of technology according to the FAA's definition of it since you get a monetary gain from flying your drone.
Which leads me to ask this: Isn't there model flying competitions where you can win prizes which is worth a lot of money, does that constitute commercial use of technology too???
Somebody breaks into a combination-lock factory and steals the list of serial-numbers and their associated codes. They then proceed to use this information to break into peoples homes and rifle through all their belongings.
Don't you think that a home-owner who bought this lock thinking it was secure is going to do something about it?
The company selling the locks now has a couple of problems: the public image of their company has been tarnished, all the the locks they have sold are now insecure and a lot of customers now want their insecure locks exchanged for secure at no cost. All this will hit the company hard financially.
Slashdot Mirror
./ is going rapidly downhill with these kind of stories.
Is Rupert Murdoch a "silent" partner among the new owners??
You do know that RTS stands for "Real Time Strategy", right?
The games you have listed are FPS games that have a thin RPG veneer on them and they are not the slightest RTS in any way.
Dawkins help us if they ever find out how much they have in common and stop shooting each other.
Doesn't matter if they find out how much they have in common, they all believe that their specific belief is the right one and everyone else are the spawn of satan, ie. the situation will get even more polarized if they compare notes.
It is very close to the 'insurance' that the mafia sells.
I doubt that ABP threatens the ad-agencies with smashing their knees in or burning down their business, although sometimes I feel that would be an appropriate response to some of the ads I've seen.
If you are going to quote the original article by cut'n'paste a blurb, FFS make sure you fix the encoded entities. It looks so frigging amateurish when you don't.
You do know why Switzerland has such a huge number, don't you? Otherwise you shouldn't use it in a discussion.
If you had read the bolded part and it's implications you would have discovered that your reply was unnecessary.
What he/she is saying is that by changing the rules to encompass situations you describe, an autonomous vehicle would never have to break any rules. Having an autonomous vehicle which bend or break the rules in certain situations is a sure recipe for accidents and getting sued into oblivion.
In other words, the traffic laws needs to be updated to take into consideration autonomous vehicles. As with all other emerging tech we have laws and regulations that are lagging behind and in some cases they are totally obsolete.
If you get more than 320 posts on a day in your feed you either have a couple of friends that has nothing better to do than post/sharing junk on facebook OR you have nothing better to do and are friending everyone or subscribing to anything that crosses your path.
Monsantos GMO-crops has already cross-pollinated ordinary crops years ago, the result was a farmer being sued and had to battle Monsanto in court for years.
You can read more here: https://thegranddisillusion.wo...
Not really, in Sweden it's quite cheap to lease a dedicated line. The price point for 1Gbit/s is less than $4000/month.
I'm just waiting for the first malware that will co-opt all the telemetry to spy on users...
She says she doesn't trust Microsoft with her information, but Google? She approves of them faithfully
Why didn't you include the whole quote from the post:
My views of Microsoft and Google are pretty much diametrically opposed -- I have enormous faith in Google and Googlers doing the right thing with respect to protecting the data I share with them,
But I guess all you really wanted to do, was to spin it so she looked foolish (just look what you used as a title for your post) -- which tells me you aren't here to have a constructive discussion and I cannot fathom why ANYONE would mod your post as insightful.
So what is an acceptable probability (cost/benefit wise) for a loss of one life?
So what is an acceptable probability (cost/benefit wise) for a loss of 1 million lives?
So what is an acceptable probability (cost/benefit wise) for a loss of an animal species?
So what is an acceptable probability (cost/benefit wise) for a loss of an insect species?
So what is an acceptable probability (cost/benefit wise) for a minimum 10% loss of viability in biomes?
I can go on, but you get my point. Of course economics play a huge role in how to tackle it, but the economics of not tackle it doesn't look good at all.
End the end, the ones usually doing the cost/benefit analysis is also the ones holding the purse...
Uhm, but there is no real consensus what the magnitude of the possible problem is. When lives are at stake you mostly plan for the worst case scenario, unless you are a cynic of course.
And I'm far more concerned that we choose wrongly and the whole climate becomes counter-productive which means we only will have one goal: survive.
Not really, since if there is no man made climate change we at least need to clean up our environment anyway. If on the other hand the skeptics are wrong and they win the argument humanity is up shit creek and it's going to cost a ton of money and lives in the near future.
So, to be on the safe side isn't it better to deal with a possible man made climate change now regardless of it's true or not?
I'm not advocating we use misleading "advertisements", I'm advocating that with the same education you can do more than you think and that message has to be clear, and even more so if you want to attract women to engineering that has the cultural stereotype of being a job for men.
I really don't think that the courses need to change, as I said in my first post it's all about how you sell it and if the stated goals of the curriculum indicates societal beneficial engineering knowledge you will get more women to apply even though there is no change to the curriculum itself.
Where do you get that the goal is to get a 50/50 gender-balance? You read 50/50 and assumed that was the goal. What they did was to showcase an example where they made a new program geared at societal meaningfulness which garnered a 50/50 balance.
And the conclusion was that you can increase the number of females in engineering by changing or rephrasing the goal of the curriculum, ie. "Learn engineering and save lives" vs. "Learn engineering and design a reverse osmosis plant".
I see a lot of negative comments about the op-ed. I really don't get it though. A lot of posters complain that it's wrong to alter the curriculum so you can attract more female students, that it's all liberal or/and feminine hogwash.
Most universities tweak their curriculum so they are up to date and attract more students that way. So what is so wrong with making a curriculum more attractive to women? We are not talking about excluding males here, but if you feel that way maybe your ego is a bit fragile.
The whole op-ed it can be summarized in one question:
Do male engineers want to work with more female engineers? If yes, make the curriculum more attractive to women. You don't even need to change the curriculum, you only need to change the description so it shows what good engineering can do for society. It most instances, it's how you describe something that makes a sale.
I see some have answered "Because they can" and it seems I was too obtuse...
When has common knowledge stopped academic research into things.. :)
Time for another beer!
So, after they have solved this conundrum can they then focus their attention on breeding out the need for dogs to lick their balls?
But given the state of the competitive behavior in academic circles we will instead end up knowing WHY dogs lick their balls...
Over and out!
So you say that Netflix as a company shouldn't try to get the best deal they can they can when signing with an ISP? Interesting theory...
Any ISP signing a contract with Netflix should realize what a bandwidth hog Netflix is. If that incurs extra costs for the ISP it's THEIR problem. If someone downstream throttles Netflix because users on that ISP uses a lot of bandwidth it's still not Netflix problem, the users ISP has oversold their available bandwidth.
It's a fact that the internet provider market in the US lacks competition and is more or less monopolistic or duopolist with hints of cartel agreements. When a market is dysfunctional in that way someone has to step in and sort the mess out since it's obvious the market wasn't interested in fixing it.
And by the tone in your post you rather have a dysfunctional internet provider market that abuse and gouges it's customers every day than some weak regulation that will at least try to fix the worst problems.
And FYI, it's because of progressive world views that we have a modern society but you are welcome to stay in the past while moaning about the progressives wanting progress (because without progress things stagnate).
What if you take photos of you flying a drone and a magazine buys the right to use your photos in their magazine, does that constitute commercial use?
If someone makes a painting of you flying a drone and then you sell the painting, does that constitute commercial use?
Both examples above would constitute commercial use of technology according to the FAA's definition of it since you get a monetary gain from flying your drone.
Which leads me to ask this: Isn't there model flying competitions where you can win prizes which is worth a lot of money, does that constitute commercial use of technology too???
Your analogy doesn't work. Here is a better one:
Somebody breaks into a combination-lock factory and steals the list of serial-numbers and their associated codes. They then proceed to use this information to break into peoples homes and rifle through all their belongings.
Don't you think that a home-owner who bought this lock thinking it was secure is going to do something about it?
The company selling the locks now has a couple of problems: the public image of their company has been tarnished, all the the locks they have sold are now insecure and a lot of customers now want their insecure locks exchanged for secure at no cost. All this will hit the company hard financially.