So what you're saying is that an entire group of people is bad because one person said something you think you disagree with but don't quite understand because you're not too sure about academic lingo.
It's an academic study, so the method is published. Examine it and write a letter to the journal editor in rebuttal if you think the method is fraudulent. People do and bad science is removed.
We ideally should have at most 1-2 billion on Earth, which equates to 10 billion in the solar system.
And that requires preventing all resources being drained by excessive copies of any given mutation.
Since we cannot know future needs, we cannot say anything is useless other than excess.
As for living in Mars, that's easy. We know how to live on Mars. Deep underground. Been known for years. Only idiots talk about surface dwellings. There's nothing interesting on the surface, just a lot of radiation and toxins.
The Arrival Of The Internet This brings us to the 1980s, when The Internet first became publicly available. At the time, the existing common carrier laws were applied de facto to the fledgling Internet Service Providers (ISPs) because the only mechanism for access was a dial up modem. Information was traveling across a service that had already been classified as a common carrier, and although the type of information had changed dramatically from human voices to computer documents the mechanism for delivery had not changed at all. DSL providers, who used telephone wires to carry Internet data were classified as Title II Common Carriers and were not allowed to throttle traffic to and from any particular destination or charge an additional fee for that transmission.
Those are all cases where there is well-defined commerce crossing a well-defined boundary.
Here, we have a system that uses dynamic routing, so you cannot state which boundary will be crossed. We also have a system where caching and replication are commonplace, so you can't say when or at what stage a boundary will be crossed. Protocol layers and encapsulation mean you cannot say how a boundary is crossed. Mobile IP means you can't prove that a given connection actually crossed a boundary at all.
You have to treat the data level as part of the wire level, as per IETF specs, or you end up with a nonsense. If you cannot prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, anything regarding an individual data packet, what's to stop Florida regulating Colorado Internet on the grounds that packets might go through there when travelling within the state?
I see lots of unintended consequences, if any ISP or State actor goes rogue. It is for people going rogue that you need laws. You don't need laws when things work.
Let's say the Internet switched to transparent web caching. You would then be connecting to a local web server.
Packets are carried in containers, the wire protocol. The wire protocol traverses one hop. What is contained is extracted and repackaged. It's like having a multitude of trucking companies. Only the company crossing State lines can be implicated, all the others are intra-state.
...to make a router that was secure against any realistic attack and still offer better throughput than anything being sold today. Reason you don't get that? It costs a little more and has to be modular, not single board.
People prefer cheap and nasty to quality, every time.
Would you rather science journals publish ads as articles? It would utterly destroy science and set back civilization, but at least you'd see everything. Sales of brain bleach would sky rocket.
Nobody wants everything, nor should they suffer it. Even you don't want everything.
If talking is dictating, democracy is slavery and war is peace.
Besides, if you want to talk about dictating, start with the religious and the Tea Party. They're the ones who will not tolerate dissension and who demand everything is their way.
In Britain, it's the religious who are threatening to overthrow May's government if they don't have things their way.
When was the last time you heard threats to depose a government by a geneticist or mathematician?
People aren't equal, and one person is truly insignificant.
What we need is to greatly reduce unnecessary duplication of genes. You might find a hundred schizophrenics useful, or a thousand, but not a quarter billion.
You certainly don't need three or four billion neurotypicals. I suspect one is sufficient, since normal genes will exist dispersed across everyone else.
As long as all useful mutations are represented (schizophrenia, bipolar, autism, depression, synaesthesia, tetrachromatism - these are all useful, as are many others) then you don't need specific combinations in individuals.
Individuals have limited worth, there are no souls and acquired knowledge can be acquired through books. You still need people, but people aren't the same as individuals.
Indeed, as the body is a federation of many organisms - you are a gestalt, a superorganism - neither you nor I are individuals.
I can't see Red Hat generating in a year as much CO2 as all steps in the making, transporting and consuming all the hamburgers all Red Hat employees + users over that same year.
Anyone who believes that you could have a sustained conspiracy for 128 years with only a few fringe conspiracy theorists noticing is... probably not worth my time debating.
Slashdot Mirror
There have been several books describing the effect of Eliza. Most saying people could not distinguish it from a person, feeling it was alive, etc.
So what you're saying is that an entire group of people is bad because one person said something you think you disagree with but don't quite understand because you're not too sure about academic lingo.
It's an academic study, so the method is published. Examine it and write a letter to the journal editor in rebuttal if you think the method is fraudulent. People do and bad science is removed.
We ideally should have at most 1-2 billion on Earth, which equates to 10 billion in the solar system.
And that requires preventing all resources being drained by excessive copies of any given mutation.
Since we cannot know future needs, we cannot say anything is useless other than excess.
As for living in Mars, that's easy. We know how to live on Mars. Deep underground. Been known for years. Only idiots talk about surface dwellings. There's nothing interesting on the surface, just a lot of radiation and toxins.
The Arrival Of The Internet
This brings us to the 1980s, when The Internet first became publicly available. At the time, the existing common carrier laws were applied de facto to the fledgling Internet Service Providers (ISPs) because the only mechanism for access was a dial up modem. Information was traveling across a service that had already been classified as a common carrier, and although the type of information had changed dramatically from human voices to computer documents the mechanism for delivery had not changed at all. DSL providers, who used telephone wires to carry Internet data were classified as Title II Common Carriers and were not allowed to throttle traffic to and from any particular destination or charge an additional fee for that transmission.
https://medium.com/@TebbaVonMa...
Dog in a manger.
Those are all cases where there is well-defined commerce crossing a well-defined boundary.
Here, we have a system that uses dynamic routing, so you cannot state which boundary will be crossed. We also have a system where caching and replication are commonplace, so you can't say when or at what stage a boundary will be crossed. Protocol layers and encapsulation mean you cannot say how a boundary is crossed. Mobile IP means you can't prove that a given connection actually crossed a boundary at all.
You have to treat the data level as part of the wire level, as per IETF specs, or you end up with a nonsense. If you cannot prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, anything regarding an individual data packet, what's to stop Florida regulating Colorado Internet on the grounds that packets might go through there when travelling within the state?
I see lots of unintended consequences, if any ISP or State actor goes rogue. It is for people going rogue that you need laws. You don't need laws when things work.
In the case of a wire protocol based system, the goods always come from the next router or switch.
Let's say the Internet switched to transparent web caching. You would then be connecting to a local web server.
Packets are carried in containers, the wire protocol. The wire protocol traverses one hop. What is contained is extracted and repackaged. It's like having a multitude of trucking companies. Only the company crossing State lines can be implicated, all the others are intra-state.
Historically, it did. That only changed under Bush.
...to make a router that was secure against any realistic attack and still offer better throughput than anything being sold today. Reason you don't get that? It costs a little more and has to be modular, not single board.
People prefer cheap and nasty to quality, every time.
Sadly, with Servalan's death, there shall forever be a hole... to match those caused by the deaths of Gan, Blake and Zen/Orac/Slave.
Unfortunately, the discussion for her was voted down as spam. As if the supreme commander was some kind of space command trollop.
If they can throw in a teleport and Cally, that would be perfect.
Failing that, self-healing hulls would help enormously with riskier missions.
DSV-2, aka The Liberator, shall be mine! With Google working on Zen, what can possibly go wrong?
You're equating absence of signal with absence of noise.
Signal and noise are not the same, never were.
Would you rather science journals publish ads as articles? It would utterly destroy science and set back civilization, but at least you'd see everything. Sales of brain bleach would sky rocket.
Nobody wants everything, nor should they suffer it. Even you don't want everything.
Signal to noise matters.
Actually, you do.
There is no absolute free speech, even in an anarchy, nor should there be.
Works, provided your question really is one question. The example given is actually three Independent questions, each with a different bell curve.
No, it isn't, and nobody but the white extremists have ever claimed that.
The rule is that you must have a rule that is equal and equitable. That's it.
If talking is dictating, democracy is slavery and war is peace.
Besides, if you want to talk about dictating, start with the religious and the Tea Party. They're the ones who will not tolerate dissension and who demand everything is their way.
In Britain, it's the religious who are threatening to overthrow May's government if they don't have things their way.
When was the last time you heard threats to depose a government by a geneticist or mathematician?
People aren't equal, and one person is truly insignificant.
What we need is to greatly reduce unnecessary duplication of genes. You might find a hundred schizophrenics useful, or a thousand, but not a quarter billion.
You certainly don't need three or four billion neurotypicals. I suspect one is sufficient, since normal genes will exist dispersed across everyone else.
As long as all useful mutations are represented (schizophrenia, bipolar, autism, depression, synaesthesia, tetrachromatism - these are all useful, as are many others) then you don't need specific combinations in individuals.
Individuals have limited worth, there are no souls and acquired knowledge can be acquired through books. You still need people, but people aren't the same as individuals.
Indeed, as the body is a federation of many organisms - you are a gestalt, a superorganism - neither you nor I are individuals.
I can't see Red Hat generating in a year as much CO2 as all steps in the making, transporting and consuming all the hamburgers all Red Hat employees + users over that same year.
Do you have contrary figures somewhere?
Problem is, the population changed what they were doing, in part to avoid the problem.
You know, if you stop driving at full tilt towards the brick wall, then the prediction that if you'd contributed you'd have hit it doesn't apply.
What's wrong with synthetic meat?
Anyone who believes that you could have a sustained conspiracy for 128 years with only a few fringe conspiracy theorists noticing is... probably not worth my time debating.