Until the missing species collapses the environment. At which point people like you just move on to destroy someplace else. Instead of just camping someplace that you don't damage.
No, humans are not as much a part of any given local environment as any is other creature. You are destroying the meaning of "natural" to mean anything, including human interventions in nature with artificial behavior and processed materials.
Borax is not as much a part of the ants' environment as their tunnelling dirt, or they'd be either dead or adapted to not die when we apply it.
"Everything's everything" is not a reasonable argument. There are things that are out of place when they're introduced by people.
They are part of the natural environment. Human efforts to eradicate species in places doesn't determine whether they're natural. Neither does the length of time they've been part of an environment.
Note that I am not loading "natural" with any kind of value judgement. In fact, it seems better to protect environments from invaders by individual acts like boraxing a fireant nest than by large scale means that typically have a lot more collateral damage.
I am merely talking about what "natural" means, which is important if we're going to talk about nature. Without splitting hairs into meaningless word games, we distinguish between artificial and natural. Humans, though an animal species, transporting borax, though a naturally occurring mineral, into ecosystems that have not evolved to adapt to them, is not natural. Which is why it devastates fire ant colonies.
Whether that's good or bad (except to the ants, for which it's entirely bad) is another matter. But a matter that cannot be discussed until we understand what we mean by "natural", if we're going to talk in those terms.
Humans don't need to live where they must kill ants to avoid pain and suffering. Upsetting our environment, including the part that we'd normally not inhabit but that is linked to us through other species and climate, causes human pain and suffering (after doing worse to other species).
Yeah, $5K:GB is pretty expensive, especially compared to "expensive" continental 4G at about $3.75:GB ($75:mo for 20GB). But INMARSAT looks like it's primarily a commercial voice network, which can spend $thousands a month for a dozen hours total talking time. Is that really the only data signal that spans the Pacific?
They are all now part of the natural environment. Bringing manufactured chemicals and inserting them around a vehicle is obviously less natural than an invasive species.
How many MPG do fully loaded RVs get? I drive about 25Kmi a year including daily commute, but I get about 25MPG average. That's only about 1Kgal:year. If an RV gets only 8MPG, 1Kgal is 8Kmi, which is less than coast-to-coast (3Kmi direct) 3 times a year. The average driver goes only about 15Kmi:year, though getting an average 22MPG, or 682gal; an 8MPG RV will go only 5450mi, not even roundtrip Disneyworld/Seattle, even by the most direct route.
Also my house is highly energy efficient, both in its consumption (including lots of bulky insulation) and in generation and the grid that feeds it. RVs seem to be very inefficient, especially if heating during cold months (instead of driving to the sun).
Are they really lowering their impact? Or are they far exceeding what is sustainable in this country?
I oversee multiple teams of outsourced labor, including development, office IT, graphics, PR, marketing... They all work in offices, but some are home offices and all are remote, regardless of what country they're in. I've never seen most of them in person. Yet I supervise them daily.
Employers who are eager to outsource, but reluctant to use telecommuters, are stupid. They are far fewer than you think.
"Is not considered to be wrong"? Perhaps by you Anonymous Coward. The issue of live, even autonomous, animal tissue without animal nerves is pretty new, and far from settled. Asimov's half-century old work, from before anyone had any actual experience with any of these innovations, and a cartoon, aren't the final words on the matter.
The point is that the boundaries of "robot" are now fuzzy, and categorical statements like "biological or not" are invalid.
BTW, your post was 111 words while mine was only 86. "TL;DR" is a copout; you just don't want to think about it.
Like it or not, we have to actually think and feel this issue through. We are going to be making these cyborgs, in all degrees from 100% natural to 100% artificial. We will be responsible for the ethical consequences, and the practical effects. Including what we do to our perception of 100% natural humans, either thinking them/us too special compared to the rest, or not special enough.
When I started my career in the early 1990s I planned to get enough resume experience by about 2000 that I'd be totally mobile. I'd sail a boat from SF to Tokyo, linked to the Internet all the way by satellite. I'd get jobs from Internet listings, collaborate with teams across the Net, write Internet SW, upload it, get paid direct deposit, pay (few) bills by charges over the Net.
All that seemed possible, though maybe only a few thousand humans would have agreed at the time. My career took a different (more money, less freedom) path, but the Internet has delivered its infrastructure for that dream.
Except maybe the satellite. What kind of bandwidth is available across the Pacific? How much coverage?
We will probably make these robots work harder than we work natural animals.We will probably work some until they break, until the animal tissue dies, because we can "just replace it".
How much of the robot has to be animal before working it that hard is cruelty to the animal? How much robot until it's not an animal with a prosthetic, but flips to a robot with tissue?
Or are all hybrids subject to the compassion we have for animals?
The touch edges wouldn't replace the graphics. Different app widgets/locations would be no harder to find than with graphics-only. And in fact easier to "remember" with hand muscle memory than with visual memory directing hand muscles.
We need touchscreens with a memory plastic surface layer that pops 100dpi bumps up and down around GUI widget borders. Then you can feel what's under your fingertips, and your hand will navigate and remember what to do without the eyes or visual concentration needed in the loop.
Cars should all be required to include speakerphones for mobile phones, both Bluetooth and wired, that override the radio and pick up / hang up on voice command. When they've mastered that, they should get into heads up displays projected onto the road view. And move all dashboard buttons/knobs to the steering wheel, where they should be physical so hands can work them without eyes.
Carmakers divert $billions and MPGs into safety because we regulated them into protecting us instead of killing us. We have to add views and controls to that regulation, or they'll kill us all with these distracting toys.
And patrol the roads with unmarked cars cruising to bust people holding their phones while they drive. That should be a $500 fine, then a $1000 and a suspended license, then a $2000 fine, revoked license for 2 years and jailtime - all of which should be to car insurance what smoking 2 packs a day is to medical insurance.
Slashdot Mirror
Until the missing species collapses the environment. At which point people like you just move on to destroy someplace else. Instead of just camping someplace that you don't damage.
No, humans are not as much a part of any given local environment as any is other creature. You are destroying the meaning of "natural" to mean anything, including human interventions in nature with artificial behavior and processed materials.
Borax is not as much a part of the ants' environment as their tunnelling dirt, or they'd be either dead or adapted to not die when we apply it.
"Everything's everything" is not a reasonable argument. There are things that are out of place when they're introduced by people.
They are part of the natural environment. Human efforts to eradicate species in places doesn't determine whether they're natural. Neither does the length of time they've been part of an environment.
Note that I am not loading "natural" with any kind of value judgement. In fact, it seems better to protect environments from invaders by individual acts like boraxing a fireant nest than by large scale means that typically have a lot more collateral damage.
I am merely talking about what "natural" means, which is important if we're going to talk about nature. Without splitting hairs into meaningless word games, we distinguish between artificial and natural. Humans, though an animal species, transporting borax, though a naturally occurring mineral, into ecosystems that have not evolved to adapt to them, is not natural. Which is why it devastates fire ant colonies.
Whether that's good or bad (except to the ants, for which it's entirely bad) is another matter. But a matter that cannot be discussed until we understand what we mean by "natural", if we're going to talk in those terms.
Humans don't need to live where they must kill ants to avoid pain and suffering. Upsetting our environment, including the part that we'd normally not inhabit but that is linked to us through other species and climate, causes human pain and suffering (after doing worse to other species).
Yeah, $5K:GB is pretty expensive, especially compared to "expensive" continental 4G at about $3.75:GB ($75:mo for 20GB). But INMARSAT looks like it's primarily a commercial voice network, which can spend $thousands a month for a dozen hours total talking time. Is that really the only data signal that spans the Pacific?
They are all now part of the natural environment. Bringing manufactured chemicals and inserting them around a vehicle is obviously less natural than an invasive species.
The point is that sprinkling borax on the ground is not completely natural as it was claimed. Try to keep up. Not just project your crazy talk.
How much does it cost? How much is the "modem"?
How many MPG do fully loaded RVs get? I drive about 25Kmi a year including daily commute, but I get about 25MPG average. That's only about 1Kgal:year. If an RV gets only 8MPG, 1Kgal is 8Kmi, which is less than coast-to-coast (3Kmi direct) 3 times a year. The average driver goes only about 15Kmi:year, though getting an average 22MPG, or 682gal; an 8MPG RV will go only 5450mi, not even roundtrip Disneyworld/Seattle, even by the most direct route.
Also my house is highly energy efficient, both in its consumption (including lots of bulky insulation) and in generation and the grid that feeds it. RVs seem to be very inefficient, especially if heating during cold months (instead of driving to the sun).
Are they really lowering their impact? Or are they far exceeding what is sustainable in this country?
I oversee multiple teams of outsourced labor, including development, office IT, graphics, PR, marketing... They all work in offices, but some are home offices and all are remote, regardless of what country they're in. I've never seen most of them in person. Yet I supervise them daily.
Employers who are eager to outsource, but reluctant to use telecommuters, are stupid. They are far fewer than you think.
Why didn't you?
You know that satellites cover forests, mountains, and as much of the West as of the East, right?
The fireants are part of the environment. The campers and their borax far less so.
Across most of America people usually (always?) have at least two choices for wireless WANs, cell or satellite, and usually more than 2.
"Is not considered to be wrong"? Perhaps by you Anonymous Coward. The issue of live, even autonomous, animal tissue without animal nerves is pretty new, and far from settled. Asimov's half-century old work, from before anyone had any actual experience with any of these innovations, and a cartoon, aren't the final words on the matter.
The point is that the boundaries of "robot" are now fuzzy, and categorical statements like "biological or not" are invalid.
BTW, your post was 111 words while mine was only 86. "TL;DR" is a copout; you just don't want to think about it.
Like it or not, we have to actually think and feel this issue through. We are going to be making these cyborgs, in all degrees from 100% natural to 100% artificial. We will be responsible for the ethical consequences, and the practical effects. Including what we do to our perception of 100% natural humans, either thinking them/us too special compared to the rest, or not special enough.
When I started my career in the early 1990s I planned to get enough resume experience by about 2000 that I'd be totally mobile. I'd sail a boat from SF to Tokyo, linked to the Internet all the way by satellite. I'd get jobs from Internet listings, collaborate with teams across the Net, write Internet SW, upload it, get paid direct deposit, pay (few) bills by charges over the Net.
All that seemed possible, though maybe only a few thousand humans would have agreed at the time. My career took a different (more money, less freedom) path, but the Internet has delivered its infrastructure for that dream.
Except maybe the satellite. What kind of bandwidth is available across the Pacific? How much coverage?
We will probably make these robots work harder than we work natural animals.We will probably work some until they break, until the animal tissue dies, because we can "just replace it".
How much of the robot has to be animal before working it that hard is cruelty to the animal? How much robot until it's not an animal with a prosthetic, but flips to a robot with tissue?
Or are all hybrids subject to the compassion we have for animals?
What about when it's human tissue?
What does it give you that the factory distro doesn't?
The touch edges wouldn't replace the graphics. Different app widgets/locations would be no harder to find than with graphics-only. And in fact easier to "remember" with hand muscle memory than with visual memory directing hand muscles.
We need touchscreens with a memory plastic surface layer that pops 100dpi bumps up and down around GUI widget borders. Then you can feel what's under your fingertips, and your hand will navigate and remember what to do without the eyes or visual concentration needed in the loop.
When it kills people who just can't get out of the way fast enough, the evolution isn't heroic.
Cars should all be required to include speakerphones for mobile phones, both Bluetooth and wired, that override the radio and pick up / hang up on voice command. When they've mastered that, they should get into heads up displays projected onto the road view. And move all dashboard buttons/knobs to the steering wheel, where they should be physical so hands can work them without eyes.
Carmakers divert $billions and MPGs into safety because we regulated them into protecting us instead of killing us. We have to add views and controls to that regulation, or they'll kill us all with these distracting toys.
And patrol the roads with unmarked cars cruising to bust people holding their phones while they drive. That should be a $500 fine, then a $1000 and a suspended license, then a $2000 fine, revoked license for 2 years and jailtime - all of which should be to car insurance what smoking 2 packs a day is to medical insurance.
Root! I like my open source OS to be open, not just visible.
I'm surprised Nexus 7 isn't supported. There are tables, but only the Advent Vega, Nook Color and HP Touchpad.
It would be a lot of trimming. I like the trees, and the shade.
Plus, I might get a lookout tower out of the deal.
I want it all!