There will always be scarce resources, and in the foreseeable future that includes pretty much everything. Where there are scarce resources, you need a method to distribute them such that they are reasonably and fairly obtainable. Almost any non-market method lacks both fairness and efficiency, and you're going to end up with resources simply not being distributed where they are needed.
Cost per hour would be a better metric. A human costs $15 in wages, plus all the extras for compensation, training, human resources, payroll management, and so on. So, probably closer to $30 per hour.
If your $35k robot lasts for 5 years running 16 hours per day, that's $.83 per hour, plus the cost of maintenance. That would have to be one hell of a lot of maintenance to not be worthwhile.
Here's the issue with drug testing. Let's say you have 100 employees, and each employee is drug tested once per month, and the test you give is right 95% of the time (chances are your tests aren't even that accurate). And let's say that 98% of your employees are not using drugs that will be caught by the test (either they aren't taking those particular drugs, or they know how to beat it).
What are the chances that guy who came up positive is actually using drugs?
In an average month, you will end up with about seven positives, only two of which are accurate. In a given year, about 45% of your non-drug-using employees will come up positive. Sure, you catch the stupider drug users with this type of system, but at the cost of accusing innocent people.
What do you think it does for morale when an innocent person is accused or fired for using drugs? You're far better off addressing people whose work is not up to par, regardless of the reason.
Ah yes, ISIS believe deeply that children are individuals with a right to a minimum standard of care. Except of course for the ones they murder, rape, burn with acid, genitally mutilate, and send to blow others up on a daily basis.
I'm confident in your ability to come up with a more ignorant statement, but I certainly can't think of one right now.
The case you're talking about was overblown. There was a report of possible neglect, the report was investigated, and the home was found to be alright. How is this different from what you think is supposed to happen?
Your children aren't *yours*, they are individuals with a right to a minimum standard of care. If you can't or won't provide that standard of care, then they belong with someone who will.
It's not an 'error rate,' it's a case where the thing they're measuring doesn't correlate to a person's level of intoxication. It's like charging a person for texting and driving because the phone is visible on the console.
Only people with a cell phone nearby can text and drive, but not everyone with a cellphone nearby does. Likewise, a person will have THC in their blood if they're driving stoned, but not everyone with THC in their blood is driving stoned. The test just isn't enough to differentiate between people who have committed a crime and those who have not, so using it to determine if a crime has been committed is a huge miscarriage of justice.
Did you miss the part where a blood test does NOT prove that a person is intoxicated? All it proves is that they smoked marijuana at some point in the past month or so. Maybe they smoked a joint at a party two weeks ago.
What a law like this will do is convince people that DUI laws are bullshit, and certain people will get behind the wheel while stoned simply because the penalty is the same regardless of whether they drive now or in four hours when they're sober.
"Influenza A virus was isolated from seven of 11 nasal swab specimens selected for viral culture. These seven specimens had HA1 protein sequences that were identical to each other and differed from the 2013–14 influenza A (H3N2) A/Texas/50/2012 vaccine strain by 5 amino acid substitutions (N128A, R142G, N145S, P198S, and V347K)."
These people got a flu shot, but the flu shot didn't cover the strain they were infected with.
Sure, there's insurance premiums. But those would be there regardless, and as you say, they will only go up if fraud in general trends higher. The impact of this particular case is negligible.
I was responding specifically to OP's claim that either the state or the customers would foot the bill. Not sure where it is you think I made a moral judgement.
Not sure where it is you think I made a moral judgement. I was responding specifically to OP's claim that either the state or the customers would foot the bill.
Discrimination based on behavior is the primary way in which society regulates itself. Person works for the wrong company? Discriminate away. Same if they wear the wrong clothes, or print hate literature. Problems start when you discriminate against someone because of traits inherent to that person, rather than what they do. This is because things like race and gender and sexual orientation are immutable and central to who a person is.
The best part about that quote is the cognitive dissonance you would need to say that being enslaved is good for black people, but it would 'destroy (white people) as a people.' If I wasn't so sure it was real I would assume it to be satire.
The courts don't write laws (at least not in Canada), and this case is no exception. When the courts strike down laws, they give legislatures a set amount of time to re-write the law such that it complies with the Constitution. In the meantime, the old law stands for up to one year. So no, you can't just randomly walk into a doctors office and demand that they put you down as you suggested.
No, it's not. They just told lawmakers they have to write a new, constitutional law. The old law is in effect for a set amount of time so that this can happen.
What exactly is it that you think atheists believe? Atheism is when you lack a belief in God, nothing to do with souls or consciousness or personal identity. And none of these things have anything to do with this crude take on 'teleportation'.
Regardless of what happens on the other end of the machine, if you physically destroy the body of a living thing then it will die. It will experience exactly the same things that it would if you killed it and then did not make a copy.
Slashdot Mirror
It's been a while since I worked for Shaw, but last I checked, a non-responsive box will stop working after a set amount of time.
A Google car turned into a Transformer?
There will always be scarce resources, and in the foreseeable future that includes pretty much everything. Where there are scarce resources, you need a method to distribute them such that they are reasonably and fairly obtainable. Almost any non-market method lacks both fairness and efficiency, and you're going to end up with resources simply not being distributed where they are needed.
Cost per hour would be a better metric. A human costs $15 in wages, plus all the extras for compensation, training, human resources, payroll management, and so on. So, probably closer to $30 per hour.
If your $35k robot lasts for 5 years running 16 hours per day, that's $.83 per hour, plus the cost of maintenance. That would have to be one hell of a lot of maintenance to not be worthwhile.
Here's the issue with drug testing. Let's say you have 100 employees, and each employee is drug tested once per month, and the test you give is right 95% of the time (chances are your tests aren't even that accurate). And let's say that 98% of your employees are not using drugs that will be caught by the test (either they aren't taking those particular drugs, or they know how to beat it).
What are the chances that guy who came up positive is actually using drugs?
In an average month, you will end up with about seven positives, only two of which are accurate. In a given year, about 45% of your non-drug-using employees will come up positive. Sure, you catch the stupider drug users with this type of system, but at the cost of accusing innocent people.
What do you think it does for morale when an innocent person is accused or fired for using drugs? You're far better off addressing people whose work is not up to par, regardless of the reason.
Ah yes, ISIS believe deeply that children are individuals with a right to a minimum standard of care. Except of course for the ones they murder, rape, burn with acid, genitally mutilate, and send to blow others up on a daily basis.
I'm confident in your ability to come up with a more ignorant statement, but I certainly can't think of one right now.
The case you're talking about was overblown. There was a report of possible neglect, the report was investigated, and the home was found to be alright. How is this different from what you think is supposed to happen?
Your children aren't *yours*, they are individuals with a right to a minimum standard of care. If you can't or won't provide that standard of care, then they belong with someone who will.
It's not an 'error rate,' it's a case where the thing they're measuring doesn't correlate to a person's level of intoxication. It's like charging a person for texting and driving because the phone is visible on the console.
Only people with a cell phone nearby can text and drive, but not everyone with a cellphone nearby does. Likewise, a person will have THC in their blood if they're driving stoned, but not everyone with THC in their blood is driving stoned. The test just isn't enough to differentiate between people who have committed a crime and those who have not, so using it to determine if a crime has been committed is a huge miscarriage of justice.
Did you miss the part where a blood test does NOT prove that a person is intoxicated? All it proves is that they smoked marijuana at some point in the past month or so. Maybe they smoked a joint at a party two weeks ago.
What a law like this will do is convince people that DUI laws are bullshit, and certain people will get behind the wheel while stoned simply because the penalty is the same regardless of whether they drive now or in four hours when they're sober.
Seriously? You're cool with people being arbitrarily punished for a crime they didn't commit?
The answer is in the article you linked:
"Influenza A virus was isolated from seven of 11 nasal swab specimens selected for viral culture. These seven specimens had HA1 protein sequences that were identical to each other and differed from the 2013–14 influenza A (H3N2) A/Texas/50/2012 vaccine strain by 5 amino acid substitutions (N128A, R142G, N145S, P198S, and V347K)."
These people got a flu shot, but the flu shot didn't cover the strain they were infected with.
At the credit union I work at we would disable your card and not give you a new one. It's a huge security risk.
No one is suppressing or threatening your religion. Religious people are driving people who aren't bigoted out.
I'd just like to point out to all those mentioning it that you really don't want opiates in your beer. It's a good way to stop breathing.
I don't think so. It's fair use to use snippets of a work for scholarship or research, and I think the biography of a historical figure would count.
Sure, there's insurance premiums. But those would be there regardless, and as you say, they will only go up if fraud in general trends higher. The impact of this particular case is negligible.
I was responding specifically to OP's claim that either the state or the customers would foot the bill. Not sure where it is you think I made a moral judgement.
Not sure where it is you think I made a moral judgement. I was responding specifically to OP's claim that either the state or the customers would foot the bill.
The banks have insurance for this.
Discrimination based on behavior is the primary way in which society regulates itself. Person works for the wrong company? Discriminate away. Same if they wear the wrong clothes, or print hate literature. Problems start when you discriminate against someone because of traits inherent to that person, rather than what they do. This is because things like race and gender and sexual orientation are immutable and central to who a person is.
The best part about that quote is the cognitive dissonance you would need to say that being enslaved is good for black people, but it would 'destroy (white people) as a people.' If I wasn't so sure it was real I would assume it to be satire.
The courts don't write laws (at least not in Canada), and this case is no exception. When the courts strike down laws, they give legislatures a set amount of time to re-write the law such that it complies with the Constitution. In the meantime, the old law stands for up to one year. So no, you can't just randomly walk into a doctors office and demand that they put you down as you suggested.
No, it's not. They just told lawmakers they have to write a new, constitutional law. The old law is in effect for a set amount of time so that this can happen.
What exactly is it that you think atheists believe? Atheism is when you lack a belief in God, nothing to do with souls or consciousness or personal identity. And none of these things have anything to do with this crude take on 'teleportation'.
Regardless of what happens on the other end of the machine, if you physically destroy the body of a living thing then it will die. It will experience exactly the same things that it would if you killed it and then did not make a copy.