Weren't we all supposed to be enjoying 5 months of vacation by now....
Well, we are, even more that 5 moths. Except.. it is called unemployement.
by that measure the advancement of robotics probably won't benefit human lifestyle either. Somehow we'll all end up as slaves to the machines.. if we aren't already!
Slave yes.. not to the machines, but to the banks... and, quite frequent, this include the machines/robots owners.
Personally, I'm more concerned about whetever we get space communism or resource contentration at the hands of 0.01% after 99.9% of the workforce getting laid off due to machines doing everything better for cheaper.
With nobody buying (being sacked, can't afford), what's the point of producing? Everything would be relatively too expensive no matter how absolutely cheap.
I knew some fool with no kids who thinks a parent can spend his entire life monitoring his children would post a lamebrained response like this . . . then more fools would do the same . . . I knew it going into reading this thread, but I started reading it anyway. You'd think I'd learn.
If for you parenting is limited to supervision, you worth your faith of monitoring your children all your life. But... maybe trying to teach them how to think for themselves, having open discussions with them (without fear of being punished), showing that nothing in this world is without consequences and what responsibility means... it's not like you can't start doing these with a kid aged 7.
Do you also suggest I remove all the "child safe" lids on the various poisonous things in the house?
Do you think a 7-8 years old is still stopped by a "child safe" lid? 'Cause if s/he not, I do hope that you taught her about the dangers but that age - or else store them where they cannot be accessed.
rather than having backup devices for the times my parenting skills might fail me?
I'm yet to see a "Parental control" software that does not fail. Have you ever seen one?
The people doing this research are also capable of creating vaccines, etc.
[citation needed]. Would appreciate if you can find citations showing their capability to produce quantities large enough if needed in a pandemic.
As far as actual capabilities of the researchers go, the creation of a vaccine is accomplished by creating a mutated form of the virus that triggers an autoimmune response without causing the harmful symptoms.
And developing that something without harmful symptoms is so easy? I doubt it, otherwise I'd have heard of vaccines for AIDS and Ebola for quite a long ago.
If you know they've already developed the vaccine for the mutated H5N1 virus, why not provide the citation I requested? Until I hear about it, I'll stay with my opinion: better share all the info about the virus for increased chances somebody develop the vaccine quicker if/when needed and/or to know where to look if detecting a possible strain that mutated in the wild.
And the capability to create has nothing to do with the capability to mass-produce. If that were true, you'd still be waiting for George Lucas to make you your very own VHS copy of Star Wars in his VCR. (Spoiler: by the time he gets around to recording yours, Chewbacca will have shot first!)
Haha... funny! Only serious: it's stupid for the context of mass producing vaccines! Until someone fully developed a vaccine, do you have any warranty that a good vaccine can be copied "VCR/CD/DVD/BlueRay like"? You sure that the mutated virus/protein/antibody for the vaccine can be grown as usual (egg-embryos or whatever) and still be effective? What if not and the mass-production doesn't scale that cheaply?
Put the computer in the living room and smack 'em in the head when you catch them going where they shouldn't
About to say the same, but under the form of: use same software that protects them offline - it is called parenting.
If you think not only real-life but also Internet is dangerous (a justified concern, I agree), I can't see why what's good for protecting your kids in real-life won't be also good for online one.
I said: "Yet according to them, we should wet their pants"
OUR, not THEIR.
It was truly better before publishing the errata.
(I know, almost in the same category with erotic fantasy, but...) If needed, I would queue for day and nights if I knew I can legally wet their pants while they are wearing them. Heck, I'd do it multiple times.
A computer can't have rights any more than a hammer can. Not unless it's sentient, it's a tool that does what you tell it to.
True - that's indeed in WTF category. Examples:
* Does the speech synthesized by Hawking's voice generator belongs to the voice generator?
* Does the "dreams" generated by the Electric Sheep belongs to the computer network working in generating them?
* Does the "speech" generated in High Frequency Trading belongs to the computers running algorithmic trading?
Consider that the "decisions" made by Facebook's computers may involve widely sharing your private information....
I have no problems that the decisions of sharing your private information be considered speech. But... who instructed the computers they can make this "speech" and share the private information? Would Facebook be "off-the-hook" if (allegedly) illegal sharing private information was done by using printed pages/radio/punch-cards/carved stone slates or the decision to share this information was taken by throwing dices?
For assigning the responsibility/ownership of "speech", is it relevant what tools are used to generate/distribute it?
:):) How many items make a heap? More precisely: how many you can take out and still have a heap of them?
(what's the limit on which you can still speak of enough particles that still follow a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution? The funny thing: the distribution is obtained by taking the considering the limit towards infinity, while your attempt drives towards a zero limit).
Temperature is defined in statistical terms (the Boltzman constant in the eV->K formula assumes a certain type of randomness). But... you can't have a rich enough statistical set of particles in the volume of a geometrical point to actually define a temperature for that point.
Out of curiosity, how many batteries does your megajoule flashlight spend per second?:)
:) (so where's the mistake in the - naive - statement of: "If you concentrate no matter how small amount of energy in a geometric point, the temperature of that point becomes infinite > 40 x 10^7 K required by D-D fusion"?)
From the angle of incidence you can deduce the point of impact on the lens, and from both you can deduce the original angle. You lose that information as soon as you refract all rays into the same plane.
Interesting! (and it seems correct)
However, practically, you don't need to refract all rays into a perfect plane - a small angular dispersion may be enough for practical purposes. (theoretically, if you could focus the light into a perfect geometrical point, you could hope to achievefusion with a flashlight. Or not?)
It must be scattering it, if the post is in any way accurate about it being just an uneven surface. Which means you will still get just as much light reflected off the screen on a sunny day, but the reflection won't form a coherent image to distract you from the screen image. So it's a step forward but it isn't magic.
I'm afraid of not much of it being actually scattered. Wikipedia says:
The [moth-eye] structure consists of a hexagonal pattern of bumps, each roughly 200 nm high and spaced on 300 nm centers.[5] This kind of antireflective coating works because the bumps are smaller than the wavelength of visible light, so the light sees the surface as having a continuous refractive index gradient between the air and the medium, which decreases reflection by effectively removing the air-lens interface.
If I'm right, this would mean: What's good for moths at night-time may not be that good for Sony's screens during daytime. Letting the screen in full sun may be sure way to get it burnt (have you tried to walk barefoot on asphalt pathways during a hot summer day?)
Slashdot Mirror
do they ever really stand up for The People and say, "no matter what we're going to do X even if you say no"?
Sometimes a popularly elected government comes into power and both promises and honestly intends to act against business interests, sure.
That's called a "rogue state" and we have CIA drone strikes to deal with them.
Hmmm.. this would explain why UK's PM backpedaled on bankers' bonuses.
Betteridge's Law of Headlines. Did I do that right?
Not a headline... but also no.
Sincere thanks. Saved it into my favorites.
Weren't we all supposed to be enjoying 5 months of vacation by now....
Well, we are, even more that 5 moths. Except.. it is called unemployement.
by that measure the advancement of robotics probably won't benefit human lifestyle either. Somehow we'll all end up as slaves to the machines.. if we aren't already!
Slave yes.. not to the machines, but to the banks... and, quite frequent, this include the machines/robots owners.
Personally, I'm more concerned about whetever we get space communism or resource contentration at the hands of 0.01% after 99.9% of the workforce getting laid off due to machines doing everything better for cheaper.
With nobody buying (being sacked, can't afford), what's the point of producing? Everything would be relatively too expensive no matter how absolutely cheap.
Ironically...easy app store monetization may be another factor holding HTML5 gaming back. So you want yur game in a browser? How you gonna get paid?
Monthly, please... Like in "No fee this month and your game won't be able to pull some needed scripts from my site".
Get real. No amount of parenting is going to curb a young boy's interest in sexuality. He's going to search for porn.
Huh... like parenting="curbing your kids interest in sexuality"!
I knew some fool with no kids who thinks a parent can spend his entire life monitoring his children would post a lamebrained response like this . . . then more fools would do the same . . . I knew it going into reading this thread, but I started reading it anyway. You'd think I'd learn.
If for you parenting is limited to supervision, you worth your faith of monitoring your children all your life. But... maybe trying to teach them how to think for themselves, having open discussions with them (without fear of being punished), showing that nothing in this world is without consequences and what responsibility means... it's not like you can't start doing these with a kid aged 7.
I'm yet to see a parenting skills that don't fail. I guess we shouldn't use parenting either then?
If your parenting is worse than the software currently on the market, maybe your kids a better in foster care.
Do you also suggest I remove all the "child safe" lids on the various poisonous things in the house?
Do you think a 7-8 years old is still stopped by a "child safe" lid? 'Cause if s/he not, I do hope that you taught her about the dangers but that age - or else store them where they cannot be accessed.
rather than having backup devices for the times my parenting skills might fail me?
I'm yet to see a "Parental control" software that does not fail. Have you ever seen one?
Giving out the data will be of limited value.
A matter of opinion. While I'll respect yours, it doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
Perhaps they won't grow up to be oversensitive and afraid, then.
But then... how will they trust their government when it will try to scare them out of their rights?
The people doing this research are also capable of creating vaccines, etc.
[citation needed]. Would appreciate if you can find citations showing their capability to produce quantities large enough if needed in a pandemic.
As far as actual capabilities of the researchers go, the creation of a vaccine is accomplished by creating a mutated form of the virus that triggers an autoimmune response without causing the harmful symptoms.
And developing that something without harmful symptoms is so easy? I doubt it, otherwise I'd have heard of vaccines for AIDS and Ebola for quite a long ago.
If you know they've already developed the vaccine for the mutated H5N1 virus, why not provide the citation I requested? Until I hear about it, I'll stay with my opinion: better share all the info about the virus for increased chances somebody develop the vaccine quicker if/when needed and/or to know where to look if detecting a possible strain that mutated in the wild.
And the capability to create has nothing to do with the capability to mass-produce. If that were true, you'd still be waiting for George Lucas to make you your very own VHS copy of Star Wars in his VCR. (Spoiler: by the time he gets around to recording yours, Chewbacca will have shot first!)
Haha... funny! Only serious: it's stupid for the context of mass producing vaccines!
Until someone fully developed a vaccine, do you have any warranty that a good vaccine can be copied "VCR/CD/DVD/BlueRay like"? You sure that the mutated virus/protein/antibody for the vaccine can be grown as usual (egg-embryos or whatever) and still be effective? What if not and the mass-production doesn't scale that cheaply?
Do you really think a parent hovers around their kid 24/7?
Do you really think a kid should surf the net 24/7?
Put the computer in the living room and smack 'em in the head when you catch them going where they shouldn't
About to say the same, but under the form of: use same software that protects them offline - it is called parenting.
If you think not only real-life but also Internet is dangerous (a justified concern, I agree), I can't see why what's good for protecting your kids in real-life won't be also good for online one.
I said: "Yet according to them, we should wet their pants"
OUR, not THEIR.
It was truly better before publishing the errata.
(I know, almost in the same category with erotic fantasy, but...) If needed, I would queue for day and nights if I knew I can legally wet their pants while they are wearing them. Heck, I'd do it multiple times.
The people doing this research are also capable of creating vaccines, etc.
[citation needed]. Would appreciate if you can find citations showing their capability to produce quantities large enough if needed in a pandemic.
A computer can't have rights any more than a hammer can. Not unless it's sentient, it's a tool that does what you tell it to.
True - that's indeed in WTF category. Examples:
* Does the speech synthesized by Hawking's voice generator belongs to the voice generator?
* Does the "dreams" generated by the Electric Sheep belongs to the computer network working in generating them?
* Does the "speech" generated in High Frequency Trading belongs to the computers running algorithmic trading?
Consider that the "decisions" made by Facebook's computers may involve widely sharing your private information. ...
I have no problems that the decisions of sharing your private information be considered speech.
But... who instructed the computers they can make this "speech" and share the private information? Would Facebook be "off-the-hook" if (allegedly) illegal sharing private information was done by using printed pages/radio/punch-cards/carved stone slates or the decision to share this information was taken by throwing dices?
For assigning the responsibility/ownership of "speech", is it relevant what tools are used to generate/distribute it?
I hear that sex life is like this as well. Can anyone confirm please?
(what's the limit on which you can still speak of enough particles that still follow a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution? The funny thing: the distribution is obtained by taking the considering the limit towards infinity, while your attempt drives towards a zero limit).
Speaking of which, how much would 17km/s be in Sheppeis per Tatum grid? Good old "units" doesn't know either of those units.
Sheppey: A measure of distance equal to about 78 of a mile (1.4 km), defined as the closest distance at which sheep remain picturesque.
Tatum Grid: the lowest regular pulse train that a listener intuitively infers from the timing of perceived musical events.
Oh, God. What happened with the good old FFF?
Temperature is defined in statistical terms (the Boltzman constant in the eV->K formula assumes a certain type of randomness).
But... you can't have a rich enough statistical set of particles in the volume of a geometrical point to actually define a temperature for that point.
You could certainly hope for it.
Out of curiosity, how many batteries does your megajoule flashlight spend per second? :)
:) (so where's the mistake in the - naive - statement of: "If you concentrate no matter how small amount of energy in a geometric point, the temperature of that point becomes infinite > 40 x 10^7 K required by D-D fusion"?)
From the angle of incidence you can deduce the point of impact on the lens, and from both you can deduce the original angle. You lose that information as soon as you refract all rays into the same plane.
Interesting! (and it seems correct)
However, practically, you don't need to refract all rays into a perfect plane - a small angular dispersion may be enough for practical purposes. (theoretically, if you could focus the light into a perfect geometrical point, you could hope to achieve fusion with a flashlight. Or not?)
It must be scattering it, if the post is in any way accurate about it being just an uneven surface. Which means you will still get just as much light reflected off the screen on a sunny day, but the reflection won't form a coherent image to distract you from the screen image. So it's a step forward but it isn't magic.
I'm afraid of not much of it being actually scattered. Wikipedia says:
The [moth-eye] structure consists of a hexagonal pattern of bumps, each roughly 200 nm high and spaced on 300 nm centers.[5] This kind of antireflective coating works because the bumps are smaller than the wavelength of visible light, so the light sees the surface as having a continuous refractive index gradient between the air and the medium, which decreases reflection by effectively removing the air-lens interface.
If I'm right, this would mean: What's good for moths at night-time may not be that good for Sony's screens during daytime. Letting the screen in full sun may be sure way to get it burnt (have you tried to walk barefoot on asphalt pathways during a hot summer day?)