Even supposing that this person somehow got their robot for free, he or she would still need to buy land to build their house on unless they wanted to build it somewhere that absolutely nobody else had any interest in being.
Even assuming that such DRM were feasible to implement, it still could not stop people from printing guns which do not conform to legal standards in the first place, but may still be entirely functional.
Of course, I expect that once this is fully realized, home manufacturing of any kind, without some sort of license and thus subject to regular inspection, is I'm afraid likely to be outlawed in the not too distant future.
Actually, the term even predates the printing press, and was used to refer to the activities of people other than those who were initially contracted to create the work to reproduce the work, typically attempting to discredit the original creator. People who would participate in such endeavors were called "pirates", and looked upon with similar contempt by society. when and where they were identifiable, even though there was no real laws prohibiting this kind of reproduction. The activity originally called piracy as it applies to creative works bears more resemblance to what we call plagiarism today than mere copyright infringement, but given the difficulty, expense, and effort that was required to make duplicates of works ta the time (everything having to be done entirely manually), the notion of copying something without also trying to take any of the credit probably hadn't even been given any serious thought of at the time. It probably still would have been discouraged, however, because such unauthorized copies may have been made at lesser expense, and may have been perceived to be more likely to contain errors, which could harm the public perception of the original creator.
I believe the argument against that, however, is that if you are going to ever allow anyone else to see or use what you own, then one should forever forfeit the right to claim any control over it, since one cannot reasonably control what others do with it.
Copying of creative works that were not recognized as legitimate by its creator or those who had financed their creation has been called "piracy" since even before copyright itself had been invented.
Words can have more than one definition, you know.
Again, mean is not the same thing as median except in a gaussian distribution. I understood it was right skewed also, and being right skewed, then that means that more samples exist right of the mean than to the left, which means that the median, the point at which half the samples are below, and half the samples are above, is also right of the mean. If it were perfectly gaussian, then that would mean that exactly 50% have an IQ greater than the mean, but if it is right skewed, then that percentage would actually go up, not down, since there are more samples to the right of the mean, and the median would also exist at some point to the right of the mean. If, in fact, by right skewed you actually mean that the median is at 107 instead of exactly at 100, then that would still mean that 50% have more than 107 and 50% have less. This would also mean that more than 50% have an IQ greater than 100, since in addition to those above the median, you would be including those with an IQ from 100 to 107.
That doesn't mean th discrimination is fair, nor should it be tolerated.
People have also been persecuted and discriminated against because of their race, gender, and sexual orientation. Instead of fearing such discrimination, a more productive solution is to stand boldly against it.
There's already such legislation in place in many municipalities. For example, in Vancouver Canada, if you happen to be at the site of any kind of ongoing public disturbance, whether or not you had anything to do with the disturbance or were simply passing through, you had better not be wearing a mask, or you can be arrested simply for concealing your identity in such circumstances.
... nearly as important as what is actually going to be done about it, if anything?
Saying that we did this to ourselves is nothing but assigning blame, and doesn't particularly do anything to solve the problem, assuming that it can be.
On a wet road, the coefficient of friction between the vehicle and road can easily be under 0.3, meaning that stopping distance is more than double nominal values.
Bearing in mind that the calculation above is for *minimum* stopping distance, at 55mph, the minimum stopping distance works out to be about 174 feet for a vehicle with good tires. The width of a intersection (say, 2 lanes each way) itself may be perhaps about another 50 feet across. The time it takes to travel 224 feet (the minimum stopping distance + the intersection width) at 55mph is, in fact, just under 3 seconds, which is about the duration of the yellow light you had mentioned.
However.... again, the calculation above reflects a *MINIMUM* stopping distance... not necessarily one that humans can necessarily consistently achieve... because it doesn't even allow for human reaction time. In fact, realistically, probably at least another second or two should be added to that because it is very rare that people can gauge their stopping distance so precisely while they are moving at speed anyways, even if their reaction time is excellent, so a traffic light in an area where the speed is that high should probably have a red on the order about 4.5 seconds.
A truck can take more time to stop not because of its mass, per se, but because it is a compound entity, and not a single rigid body like a smaller car, and acceleration and deceleration forces are constrained to operate within limits that are safe so that the truck's coupling to the trailer is not compromised. A truck *could* theoretically stop in the same distance as a 2500 lb compact moving at the same speed... but if it was fully loaded, it probably wouldn't be usable afterwards.
There's more at play with a train because you need to operate within acceleration and deceleration parameters that will not cause the couplings between cars to fail (with catastrophic effects). This limits how fast a train can get up to speed and how long it takes for it to stop much more than the physical characteristics of its overall inertia would otherwise have impacted it.
If you're talking about Welfare, then I dunno about where you live, but where I live, you have to actually be unemployable, either because of age or disability, to qualify for enough welfare to barely make ends meet. If you're even remotely employable (and it doesn't matter if nobody will actually hire you because the jobs just aren't available), they'll give you what you'd need to survive only as long as you are living with somebody who lets you eat their food for free and pays most of the rent.
it's the same as working. Instead of you physically going to work and getting a paycheck. Your robot does it for you.
And why should anybody pay you for work that you aren't doing? What's your robot got that somebody else's robot doesn't... or maybe even the company owner's own robot? That way he wouldn't have to pay anybody.
Slashdot Mirror
I never suggested that they could... only that laws would be passed prohibiting it.
Even supposing that this person somehow got their robot for free, he or she would still need to buy land to build their house on unless they wanted to build it somewhere that absolutely nobody else had any interest in being.
Even assuming that such DRM were feasible to implement, it still could not stop people from printing guns which do not conform to legal standards in the first place, but may still be entirely functional.
Of course, I expect that once this is fully realized, home manufacturing of any kind, without some sort of license and thus subject to regular inspection, is I'm afraid likely to be outlawed in the not too distant future.
Actually, the term even predates the printing press, and was used to refer to the activities of people other than those who were initially contracted to create the work to reproduce the work, typically attempting to discredit the original creator. People who would participate in such endeavors were called "pirates", and looked upon with similar contempt by society. when and where they were identifiable, even though there was no real laws prohibiting this kind of reproduction. The activity originally called piracy as it applies to creative works bears more resemblance to what we call plagiarism today than mere copyright infringement, but given the difficulty, expense, and effort that was required to make duplicates of works ta the time (everything having to be done entirely manually), the notion of copying something without also trying to take any of the credit probably hadn't even been given any serious thought of at the time. It probably still would have been discouraged, however, because such unauthorized copies may have been made at lesser expense, and may have been perceived to be more likely to contain errors, which could harm the public perception of the original creator.
I believe the argument against that, however, is that if you are going to ever allow anyone else to see or use what you own, then one should forever forfeit the right to claim any control over it, since one cannot reasonably control what others do with it.
Copying of creative works that were not recognized as legitimate by its creator or those who had financed their creation has been called "piracy" since even before copyright itself had been invented.
Words can have more than one definition, you know.
Where are they going to get the money to buy their robot? They've been put out of work *BY* robots.
The owner of the building, in the case of shelter The owner of the land on which produce was grown, in the case of food.
Again, mean is not the same thing as median except in a gaussian distribution. I understood it was right skewed also, and being right skewed, then that means that more samples exist right of the mean than to the left, which means that the median, the point at which half the samples are below, and half the samples are above, is also right of the mean. If it were perfectly gaussian, then that would mean that exactly 50% have an IQ greater than the mean, but if it is right skewed, then that percentage would actually go up, not down, since there are more samples to the right of the mean, and the median would also exist at some point to the right of the mean. If, in fact, by right skewed you actually mean that the median is at 107 instead of exactly at 100, then that would still mean that 50% have more than 107 and 50% have less. This would also mean that more than 50% have an IQ greater than 100, since in addition to those above the median, you would be including those with an IQ from 100 to 107.
But how would you buy those shares in a robot company, when a robot has already taken your job?
You are confusing median and mean. Average is not the same thing as 50th percentile
That doesn't mean th discrimination is fair, nor should it be tolerated. People have also been persecuted and discriminated against because of their race, gender, and sexual orientation. Instead of fearing such discrimination, a more productive solution is to stand boldly against it.
There's already such legislation in place in many municipalities. For example, in Vancouver Canada, if you happen to be at the site of any kind of ongoing public disturbance, whether or not you had anything to do with the disturbance or were simply passing through, you had better not be wearing a mask, or you can be arrested simply for concealing your identity in such circumstances.
Saying that we did this to ourselves is nothing but assigning blame, and doesn't particularly do anything to solve the problem, assuming that it can be.
They aren't. Moot of those are addressed by welfare for people who can otherwise not afford such necessities
On a wet road, the coefficient of friction between the vehicle and road can easily be under 0.3, meaning that stopping distance is more than double nominal values.
Bearing in mind that the calculation above is for *minimum* stopping distance, at 55mph, the minimum stopping distance works out to be about 174 feet for a vehicle with good tires. The width of a intersection (say, 2 lanes each way) itself may be perhaps about another 50 feet across. The time it takes to travel 224 feet (the minimum stopping distance + the intersection width) at 55mph is, in fact, just under 3 seconds, which is about the duration of the yellow light you had mentioned.
However.... again, the calculation above reflects a *MINIMUM* stopping distance... not necessarily one that humans can necessarily consistently achieve... because it doesn't even allow for human reaction time. In fact, realistically, probably at least another second or two should be added to that because it is very rare that people can gauge their stopping distance so precisely while they are moving at speed anyways, even if their reaction time is excellent, so a traffic light in an area where the speed is that high should probably have a red on the order about 4.5 seconds.
A truck can take more time to stop not because of its mass, per se, but because it is a compound entity, and not a single rigid body like a smaller car, and acceleration and deceleration forces are constrained to operate within limits that are safe so that the truck's coupling to the trailer is not compromised. A truck *could* theoretically stop in the same distance as a 2500 lb compact moving at the same speed... but if it was fully loaded, it probably wouldn't be usable afterwards.
There's more at play with a train because you need to operate within acceleration and deceleration parameters that will not cause the couplings between cars to fail (with catastrophic effects). This limits how fast a train can get up to speed and how long it takes for it to stop much more than the physical characteristics of its overall inertia would otherwise have impacted it.
Of course... they can resort to stealing what they need to survive instead.
If you're talking about Welfare, then I dunno about where you live, but where I live, you have to actually be unemployable, either because of age or disability, to qualify for enough welfare to barely make ends meet. If you're even remotely employable (and it doesn't matter if nobody will actually hire you because the jobs just aren't available), they'll give you what you'd need to survive only as long as you are living with somebody who lets you eat their food for free and pays most of the rent.
And why should anybody pay you for work that you aren't doing? What's your robot got that somebody else's robot doesn't... or maybe even the company owner's own robot? That way he wouldn't have to pay anybody.
And who's gonna be paying you to spend your time doing art, music entertainment, or any other leisure activity?
I'd be more worried about how will all those jobless people do things like pay for food and shelter? Or are they all expected to simply die off?
That was my point.... stopping distance *IS* generally independent of vehicle mass.
Actually, the mass of the vehicle doesn't really significantly impact the stopping distance on reasonably level grade.
See here.