Actually, a number of prostitutes have said that they are mostly therapists. Granted, a lot of it probably depends on what their clientele is, and I doubt that "crack whores" play typically play that kind of role.
Public/private is too broad a dichotomy. If the private company still has all of the same profit incentives as a public department, then it's going to be worse, just like private prisons.
A Brita water filter lasts about 100 gallons, so this is a piece of paper with about a quarter of the lifespan of a traditional water filter. I'm guessing that the 'piece of paper' part of it is to make it cheaper and more easily transported, so as long as you have at four pages in a book, it's probably going to last longer.
What's the point in spending a week looking for patents on a technique that will take 5 minutes to come up with and 3 hours to implement, especially since you still have to spend those 5 minutes recognizing and coming up with a solution and the 3 hours of implementation (since patents don't include implementations)?
Actually, patents usually lead to far greater consolidation of the industry. The generic market doesn't have the same kind of high margins as a patented drug.
Religious laws in the past were actually subject to a lot of the same kinds of evolutionary pressures as genes themselves, and thus societies often end up with a set of practices that are by and large neutral or helpful. Sure, you have a lot of useless crap and even some harmful crap, but it's a pretty clever way of figuring out the world absent rigorous scientific models. The problem is when those practices interfere with further cultural evolution.
Even if it's just luck, that doesn't mean it doesn't merit study, especially if some portion of the practices show promise. Imagine if we were able to turn acupuncture into a practice that actually has some science behind it. Real medicine could gain a new tool and people in general can be better protected from Charlatans.
Actually, there is a way to have these kinds of issues covered outside of both the tradiational public and private sectors.
From the evil overlord list.
12. One of my advisors will be an average five-year-old child. Any flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will be corrected before implementation.
Yes, it's still censorship. Censorship isn't inherently a bad thing. It certainly can be, and we should be careful of it, especially from the government, but it's not a bad thing in and of itself. "Censorship" is a much broader term than the way you are thinking of it, just like "discrimination" would be describing which of the billion messages you want to air.
No, censorship is when something is censored. Government censorship is when the government censors something. Someone might even self-censor to avoid offending others, even out of pure politeness. That's what the word means. You do touch on one reason why we consider non-government censorship to be much less of a concern: competition. If one channel won't air something, another might not. Generally speaking, we don't have as many options regarding our government, so we take government censorship much more seriously.
The First Amendment is about government infringing that right. Private censorship is still censorship, and it can potentially become as big of a threat to social progress as speech repressed by the government. For example. lots of social issues have been avoided in mainstream media because of corporate/political incentives to stay quiet about the subject. On the flip side, there is censorship that most would find totally acceptable. I'm quite fine with not seeing the genitals of a man who was streaking through a stadium. But that's still censorship, and we need to acknowledge that, and consider it as such.
No, the goal is ultimately to eliminate human material want. To get ourselves to a Star Trek type of economy where our efforts are focused on achievement instead of domination. Now, automation alone will not get us there, but it's an essential part.
No, go fuck yourself. When it comes to human rights, we shouldn't be treading water, we should setting world records for the best protections for human rights, and aim to make ourselves a decade ago look like filthy savages.
If my free speech costs someone money, the Bill of Rights has no standing.
You need to be MUCH more precise in your language, as that speech has to be fraudulent, violate some contract, or involve some other kind of tort. If this review were accurate, for example, it could cost Link money, but it would not be actionable.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, a number of prostitutes have said that they are mostly therapists. Granted, a lot of it probably depends on what their clientele is, and I doubt that "crack whores" play typically play that kind of role.
Public/private is too broad a dichotomy. If the private company still has all of the same profit incentives as a public department, then it's going to be worse, just like private prisons.
A Brita water filter lasts about 100 gallons, so this is a piece of paper with about a quarter of the lifespan of a traditional water filter. I'm guessing that the 'piece of paper' part of it is to make it cheaper and more easily transported, so as long as you have at four pages in a book, it's probably going to last longer.
The issue is that it's something that police NEED to do if they are going to do their job well.
So, they are putting an AI through a process that destroys a human mind in about two years? What could possibly go wrong?
That actually is a pretty good point. Could probably get EUrope on board, and maybe the momentum would mean that they are 50% full in the US.
What's the point in spending a week looking for patents on a technique that will take 5 minutes to come up with and 3 hours to implement, especially since you still have to spend those 5 minutes recognizing and coming up with a solution and the 3 hours of implementation (since patents don't include implementations)?
Technically, I believe that holograms, black or otherwise, are distinctly NOT matter.
Radiation + World Class Athletes = Superheroes
Yeah, actually reading TFA, it seems to be very different than what I've come to expect regarding a ruling about "reasonable expectation of privacy"
How can I not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for something that it literally happening in my pants?
Actually, patents usually lead to far greater consolidation of the industry. The generic market doesn't have the same kind of high margins as a patented drug.
Religious laws in the past were actually subject to a lot of the same kinds of evolutionary pressures as genes themselves, and thus societies often end up with a set of practices that are by and large neutral or helpful. Sure, you have a lot of useless crap and even some harmful crap, but it's a pretty clever way of figuring out the world absent rigorous scientific models. The problem is when those practices interfere with further cultural evolution.
Even if it's just luck, that doesn't mean it doesn't merit study, especially if some portion of the practices show promise. Imagine if we were able to turn acupuncture into a practice that actually has some science behind it. Real medicine could gain a new tool and people in general can be better protected from Charlatans.
By that logic, TSA agents should expect to be shot in the face for spending all day molesting strangers.
Yes, it's still censorship. Censorship isn't inherently a bad thing. It certainly can be, and we should be careful of it, especially from the government, but it's not a bad thing in and of itself. "Censorship" is a much broader term than the way you are thinking of it, just like "discrimination" would be describing which of the billion messages you want to air.
No, censorship is when something is censored. Government censorship is when the government censors something. Someone might even self-censor to avoid offending others, even out of pure politeness. That's what the word means. You do touch on one reason why we consider non-government censorship to be much less of a concern: competition. If one channel won't air something, another might not. Generally speaking, we don't have as many options regarding our government, so we take government censorship much more seriously.
The First Amendment is about government infringing that right. Private censorship is still censorship, and it can potentially become as big of a threat to social progress as speech repressed by the government. For example. lots of social issues have been avoided in mainstream media because of corporate/political incentives to stay quiet about the subject. On the flip side, there is censorship that most would find totally acceptable. I'm quite fine with not seeing the genitals of a man who was streaking through a stadium. But that's still censorship, and we need to acknowledge that, and consider it as such.
No, the goal is ultimately to eliminate human material want. To get ourselves to a Star Trek type of economy where our efforts are focused on achievement instead of domination. Now, automation alone will not get us there, but it's an essential part.
I WANT most jobs to be replaced by robots. Imagine what we could do if we weren't so bogged down with petty shit.
The first thing we do, let's replace all the lawyers.
No, go fuck yourself. When it comes to human rights, we shouldn't be treading water, we should setting world records for the best protections for human rights, and aim to make ourselves a decade ago look like filthy savages.
We don't even have people who sell loose cigarettes going through the criminal justice system. How naive are you?
You need to be MUCH more precise in your language, as that speech has to be fraudulent, violate some contract, or involve some other kind of tort. If this review were accurate, for example, it could cost Link money, but it would not be actionable.