Due to echo chambers and Dunning-Krueger, it's easily possible for this scheme to automatically result in such sites becoming highly ranked as a bunch of ignorant neo-Nazi shitheels jerk one another off in a sticky downward spiral of arrogance and hate.
This is true, but I think it understates the problem.
It's not just that fringe viewpoints are likely to generate lots of interlinked content, it's that they generate more content, period. Of all of the articles on the web that directly address the question "Did the Holocaust happen?" what percentage of them take the affirmative position? And how widely-linked are they? It's very low, because on this question the world is basically divided into two camps, one which knows that it did and doesn't see any need to argue the case, and one that believes it didn't and is highly motivated to prove that position precisely because it is not accepted by the vast majority. Although the former camp is dramatically larger, the latter is dramatically more prolific regarding the question. The more extreme the fringe viewpoint the more likely this is to happen, as long as there's a community dedicated to churning out support for it.
Of course, when you widen the scope to include all content that references the Holocaust, the mainstream view is overwhelmingly represented... but hardly any of that content addresses this specific question.
Ideally, search ranking on questions like this should consider the fact that the overwhelming content of articles that reference the topic assume the mainstream view, and then ranks content that takes the mainstream view over content that takes the fringe view, even though the mainstream view content may not seem to address the question directly. For example, in this case it would be good to give the top slot to the web site of one of the excellent Holocaust museums, which clearly provide a tremendous amount of evidence to support the reality of the event. The problem is that doing this in the general case almost requires that the search engine actually understand the question and the mainstream and fringe theories, and search engines simply aren't yet that smart.
This is an easy problem for a human, but a hard one for current AI. Because Google et al don't want to try to hand-tune responses to lots of questions, they want to find ways to get the AI to give the right answer. The average user of a search engine, though, doesn't understand that their question falls into a sort of "search uncanny valley" where the AI is smart enough to give highly on-topic responses, but not smart enough to understand that those responses are from crackpots. Instead they just see that "Google says the Holocaust didn't happen!".
Google's engineers designed them to help developers implement crypto libraries without having to become experts.
I'm not sure if I am supposed to be happy or depressed about this claim...
Happy. Because developers are not going to become experts.
Keep in mind that the class of expert we're talking about here includes Daniel Bleichenbacher, a world-class cryptographer and cryptanalyst best known for the "million-message attack", one of the first practical attacks on RSA-based PKI systems and Thai Duong, co-creator of several practical attacks against SSL and older versions of TLS. The worldwide supply of such experts is measured in hundreds. Automated tools that package and deliver (a little of) their expertise in a form that the average developer can use are a good thing.
I don't see anything in there about conservatives being called racist for attacking the stimulus plan. Also, Piers Morgan isn't part of the news media, and Morgan Freeman definitely isn't.
So can you find any actual examples, rather than random famous people saying something completely different from what was claimed?
Sorry, but we refuse to give into neo-Nazism. We are learning from Germany's big mistake to not just go with the evil flow.
Go ahead and invoke Godwin's Law. If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, smells like a duck, and has funny hair like a duck, it's probably a friggen duck.
He's suffering from Shockley/Chomsky syndrome. A smart person that thinks they are smart about things they have no training, knowledge or ability in.
Comes from having their asses kissed too much (sustained by being surrounded by echo chambers, hence Shockley went away, but Chomsky keeps on blathering).
Yeah, like a guy who built an online payment system thinking that qualifies him to start a solar energy company, or a high-performance electric car company, or even something really crazy like a rocket company.
I get what you're saying, but Musk has a rather exceptional track record of achieving his aims.
Communication is the key. One stopgap that worked pretty well for me while my colleagues were getting used to me being remote was a "telepresence". As I mentioned, we have pretty good video conferencing infrastructure, so we put a VC unit in my office and another in the area where the rest of my team sits, and we left them connected all day long. It provided a virtual window between my office and theirs so I could hear and participate in their conversations, at least when they were at or near their desks.
Keep in mind that "a couple of years" has a tremendous lifetime impact. The problem is that any crime that carries a maximum sentence of one year or more is a felony. Felonies dog you for life, and in many cases make you unemployable in your chosen profession.
I wouldn't call it a question of culture, just prevalence.
The interesting thing about attempting to be a driver of cultural change from office to remote work is that it is sort of impossible to drive change while simultaneously leading by example.
The way Louis Gerstner did it was to (1) tell everyone to work from home and (2) sell all the office space. I have no idea whether he worked in an office or from home when he did it, but I doubt it made any difference either way. I understand that IBM did find it a little difficult to make the transition in some places outside of the US, though. In the US, reasonably well-paid employees tend to have homes that are large enough that they can carve out a home office. In some other countries that isn't true. I met a couple of Japanese IBMers who tried to make it work by placing a board over the kitchen sink and working there, but it just wasn't practical.
I've worked remotely for most the last 20 years, in two different companies, Google and IBM. The two experiences have been very different.
My current employer is Google, and I've been working from home full time, 500 miles from the nearest office, for the last three years. Google has great tools for remote work, including an excellent video conferencing system (Google Video Conferencing (GVC), essentially an enterprise version of Google Hangouts) that is deployed in all conference rooms, with good cameras, microphones and screens. I have a dedicated GVC unit in my home office, a Chromebox connected to a touchscreen, so it's trivial for me to be remotely added to all meetings. Also, Google runs on e-mail, all documents are in Google Docs with its great collaboration/sharing features, and a great deal of informal communication occurs over Hangouts chat. For software engineers like me, a tremendous amount of communication also occurs via the bug tracker and in the code review tools.
So... it would seem that it would be easy to work remotely at Google. It's not. The tools are great, and in fact a lot of people I work with don't even realize that I'm remote because Googlers rarely meet the people they interact with only occasionally. But the company philosophy is that co-locating all of your employees is the best way for them to be productive and maximizes opportunistic interactions that spark creative ideas, so there are very, very few people who work remotely like I do. I recently came across a shared spreadsheet where NetOps tracks all of the people who, like me, have VPN systems configured for access to the engineering VLAN. There are 14 of us, out of ~25,000 engineers.
Because there are so few people working remotely, most Googlers simply don’t give any thought to how to manage their interactions with someone they never see in person. The people I work with only occasionally are no problem; everyone expects those interactions to be electronic anyway. The people I work with closely are no problem; they adapt. But it’s a challenge to keep my presence and concerns visible to those who fall in between. My approach is to try to overcommunicate via email, etc., and to travel to Mountain View regularly (roughly one week out of six) and make sure I get face time with everyone while I’m there. It works, but it’s definitely less efficient and I regularly find that I miss out on important bits of information that everyone else knows.
For perhaps 10 of my 15 years with IBM I worked from home full time. The tools weren’t nearly as good as what I have today at Google. We did use chat a lot (Lotus SameTime), and email was a communications staple, but we didn’t have good document collaboration tools (we emailed MS Office docs, mostly), issue tracking or code review systems. We did a lot of teleconferences.
But working remotely for IBM was at least an order of magnitude easier than working remotely for Google. Why? Because everyone I worked with was also working from home. Everyone understood that if you needed to communicate something, you had to put it in an email, you couldn’t rely on chance meetings at the micro kitchen or in the halls. Everyone expected that during meetings they could expect random house noises, dogs barking, kids playing, whatever. Not that my colleagues at Google ever complain -- or, I’m sure, would ever even think to complain -- but I can’t help but recognize that when random interruptions occur they’re always coming from me and that therefore it’s my job to minimize them.
While working remotely at IBM, I rarely traveled to see other employees (actually, I think it would have been good to do it a little bit more). I really only met the other IBMers I worked with when we attended meetings at customer sites... but even most of our customer meetings were via teleconference.
Another difference was that at IBM it was expected that people might have slow-ish Internet connections. At Google
real threat is what happened with Sanders (i'm not his supporter _at all_). it was a scandalous perversion of democracy.
Bah.
I don't care about Sanders, but there would be no impact on democracy if the Democratic party just skipped the primaries entirely and picked who they want to run. The primaries aren't part of the legally-defined election process, they're just a mechanism that the parties have chosen to use, and if they want to choose some other method, or to set up a method and then ignore it or pay lip service to it while subverting it, they're perfectly free to do that. If it makes party members mad, they can always go form their own party, which can use whatever process it likes to pick a candidate. Goat entrails, deals in smoke-filled back rooms, lotteries... or primary elections, they're all fine.
Go to your nearest Apple Genius Bar for further help using your iPhone.
So, then just sit in your car with the phone. What a brilliant solution you have there.
Phones can be charged places other than cars. There are even portable battery packs.
In reality, though, this is a non-problem. If you're at a supercharger station it's because you've been driving a long distance, and almost certainly had your phone charging in the car while driving. Also, even without the phone notification, when you plug your car in to charge you get a fairly decent estimate of what time it will be finished... so just be back to the car around then.
5 minutes grace is a bit harsh. 20 minutes would allow you to get the notification (bad signal), return to the car from the nearby shops and move.
Five minutes is fine. You already have a pretty good estimate of what time your car will finish charging, so you should plan to be back near the car around that time anyway.
There's a very easy way to make it objectively less attractive to work here, without touching wages or standard of living (well, the cost of goods produced with cheap illegal immigrant labor will go up). All you have to do is ensure that no Americans will hire illegals because the risk of doing so is too high. First step: attach criminal penalties, including non-trivial jail time, to knowingly hiring undocumented workers, and impose heavy fines on those who hired them without doing their due diligence.
People risk serious jail time and fines all the time.
Not when getting caught is virtually guaranteed.
Moreover, it will be trivial to fake "due dilligence" with bogus paperwork, not to mention all the ways that business can be done under the table.
Won't matter if getting caught is almost guaranteed and the fines are heavy.
Then you will have the uphill battle of getting juries to put rich people in jail. If you think that "regular people" are not going to bend over backwards to look the other way when rich people break the law and/or screw them over just look at who those rubes just put in the Oval Office.
People aren't going to decide that they can risk getting caught and prosecuted just because the jury might be friendly.
Your idea will not work.
Perhaps not, but none of your arguments hold water, so you still haven't made a case as to why not.
Pick a number pretty much any number, double it, somebody will pay that.
There won't be an overpopulation problem because only.001% of the population will be able to afford it.
Well, if the technique these scientists used is how it's done, the treatment won't be particularly expensive. It'll have to be done by genetic engineering of embryos, or even germ cells (eggs or sperm). The genetic modification process isn't that expensive, but the modified embryo will have to be implanted, etc., so the process will look almost exactly like in vitro fertilization, plus a little. That would put it easily within the reach of the middle class in wealthy countries, and assuming everyone who could afford it wanted to do it, economies of scale would probably drive that cost down to where nearly everyone in wealthy countries could afford it.
I see absolutely nothing in the description of the process that would make it incredibly expensive, so why do you think it would be so pricey?
The bigger barrier is ethical questions around human genetic engineering, but I expect we'll decide that this sort is a good thing.
The fact that a car is autonomous will not affect the cost model significantly.
How can you seriously argue that having to pay a driver doesn't affect the cost model significantly? Drivers are the largest expense for taxi operations, more than cars, more than maintenance, more than medallions (once the medallion cost is amortized over enough years).
I could today call a taxi to take me everywhere but I don't. It's more expensive to do that than it is to own a car in most of the US.
It's more expensive and, even more important, it's less convenient. Autonomous vehicles change both of those facts. I think the biggest thing that will change them is that many car owners will find it convenient and very cost-effective to turn their vehicles over to a ride-sharing service to generate income during the periods of time when they themselves don't need the car. Why park the car in the office parking lot when it can drop you off and then go off to make money for you?
But the effect of widespread deployment of cars in ridesharing systems will massively increase the supply of available rides for those who don't own cars, and will also push the cost of rides down to little more than the amortized cost of the car and its maintenance. The increase in supply will mean that you can get a car within 30 seconds or so of ordering it from your phone. That convenience and the low cost of rides will make more and more people opt out of car ownership themselves.
Everybody will need a car at roughly the same time and those extra cars are going to be mostly idle just like they are now between commutes.
No, because the systems can easily arrange for multiple people to be picked up by each car. Coordinating the pickups and dropoffs to minimize passenger delays is a complex optimization problem, but it's fairly easy to achieve "good enough" solutions which will seriously reduce the number of vehicles on the road. There will still be more vehicles needed during rush hour than the rest of the day, but the disparity will be reduced significantly as compared to what it is today.
Following the rules is the responsibility of the operator. Setting the rules is the responsibility of the government. In this case the government has set a rule, so why do you think Uber should be exempt from this rule and not from all the others?
I don't think Uber is arguing that it's exempt from this rule. It's arguing that the rules in place don't require a permit because they have a human driver behind the wheel.
The fact that the bureaucrats from the relevant government agency disagree doesn't mean they're right. Such bureaucrats are charged with administering and enforcing the rules defined in the law, and in some cases the law specifically delegates certain rulemaking authorities to them, but even then they don't get to just make rules arbitrarily, they have to write them down and publish them as regulations. There's usually a regulation-making process which includes public comment, etc.
So if Uber's attorneys have examined the relevant laws and regulations and they believe that Uber does not, in fact, need a permit, then they're free to proceed. If the DMV disagrees, it can take action in court, where a judge may grant an injunction to either stop or allow Uber from proceeding while the question is properly adjudicated.
Note that I'm not claiming that Uber doesn't need a permit. I don't know, and neither do you. I'm just saying that it doesn't look to me like Uber is asking to be exempt from any rules, but instead claiming that the rules don't say they need a permit.
You explained why my proposal is unnecessary and possibly a bad idea, not why it won't work. If you really want to end the vast majority of illegal immigration, it absolutely will work, and it'll be one hell of a lot cheaper and more effective than a big wall. I, personally, don't care about ending illegal immigration. Or, rather, my ideal world proposal would be to end it by removing restrictions on immigration. But for those who want to end it, there's a cheap and easy solution which they don't like because it's insufficiently punitive.
I'm good with just opening the doors to unlimited immigration, but my proposal is intended to strike a balance that would make it attractive to those who are deeply opposed to that approach.
There are some undocumented workers using faked or stolen identities, sure. But there are a lot more who work completely under the table and, no, they do *not* make minimum wage.
Your argument makes absolutely no sense. If fruit growers need to pay more to hire people, they'll pay more to hire people, no government coercion required.
Slashdot Mirror
Due to echo chambers and Dunning-Krueger, it's easily possible for this scheme to automatically result in such sites becoming highly ranked as a bunch of ignorant neo-Nazi shitheels jerk one another off in a sticky downward spiral of arrogance and hate.
This is true, but I think it understates the problem.
It's not just that fringe viewpoints are likely to generate lots of interlinked content, it's that they generate more content, period. Of all of the articles on the web that directly address the question "Did the Holocaust happen?" what percentage of them take the affirmative position? And how widely-linked are they? It's very low, because on this question the world is basically divided into two camps, one which knows that it did and doesn't see any need to argue the case, and one that believes it didn't and is highly motivated to prove that position precisely because it is not accepted by the vast majority. Although the former camp is dramatically larger, the latter is dramatically more prolific regarding the question. The more extreme the fringe viewpoint the more likely this is to happen, as long as there's a community dedicated to churning out support for it.
Of course, when you widen the scope to include all content that references the Holocaust, the mainstream view is overwhelmingly represented... but hardly any of that content addresses this specific question.
Ideally, search ranking on questions like this should consider the fact that the overwhelming content of articles that reference the topic assume the mainstream view, and then ranks content that takes the mainstream view over content that takes the fringe view, even though the mainstream view content may not seem to address the question directly. For example, in this case it would be good to give the top slot to the web site of one of the excellent Holocaust museums, which clearly provide a tremendous amount of evidence to support the reality of the event. The problem is that doing this in the general case almost requires that the search engine actually understand the question and the mainstream and fringe theories, and search engines simply aren't yet that smart.
This is an easy problem for a human, but a hard one for current AI. Because Google et al don't want to try to hand-tune responses to lots of questions, they want to find ways to get the AI to give the right answer. The average user of a search engine, though, doesn't understand that their question falls into a sort of "search uncanny valley" where the AI is smart enough to give highly on-topic responses, but not smart enough to understand that those responses are from crackpots. Instead they just see that "Google says the Holocaust didn't happen!".
Google employees on your bus? Doesn't the GBus go where you live?
Google's engineers designed them to help developers implement crypto libraries without having to become experts .
I'm not sure if I am supposed to be happy or depressed about this claim...
Happy. Because developers are not going to become experts.
Keep in mind that the class of expert we're talking about here includes Daniel Bleichenbacher, a world-class cryptographer and cryptanalyst best known for the "million-message attack", one of the first practical attacks on RSA-based PKI systems and Thai Duong, co-creator of several practical attacks against SSL and older versions of TLS. The worldwide supply of such experts is measured in hundreds. Automated tools that package and deliver (a little of) their expertise in a form that the average developer can use are a good thing.
This is not difficult to google. Here's one - you can find the others. http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.c...
I don't see anything in there about conservatives being called racist for attacking the stimulus plan. Also, Piers Morgan isn't part of the news media, and Morgan Freeman definitely isn't.
So can you find any actual examples, rather than random famous people saying something completely different from what was claimed?
I heard "conservatives" being called by the media "racist" for opposing the $760 billion stimulus bail out plan.
Cite? One nice thing about the media is that their articles and video tends to stay online in easily-findable archives.
Sorry, but we refuse to give into neo-Nazism. We are learning from Germany's big mistake to not just go with the evil flow.
Go ahead and invoke Godwin's Law. If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, smells like a duck, and has funny hair like a duck, it's probably a friggen duck.
And small duck hands, don't forget that.
There are lots of high hopes for these ventures already, but so far Musk hasn't gone beyond LEO or sold a car cheaper than $100k
Actually the Model S starts at well under $100K, and I'm sure plenty of them have been sold for less than that.
I get your point, though.
Musk is really brilliant but I think he gets bored too quickly. Finish what you started, you must.
If you're the one doing all of it, sure. If you can hire lots of brilliant and energetic people and they're moving forward well, you can expand.
He's suffering from Shockley/Chomsky syndrome. A smart person that thinks they are smart about things they have no training, knowledge or ability in.
Comes from having their asses kissed too much (sustained by being surrounded by echo chambers, hence Shockley went away, but Chomsky keeps on blathering).
Yeah, like a guy who built an online payment system thinking that qualifies him to start a solar energy company, or a high-performance electric car company, or even something really crazy like a rocket company.
I get what you're saying, but Musk has a rather exceptional track record of achieving his aims.
Sounds like a challenge!
Communication is the key. One stopgap that worked pretty well for me while my colleagues were getting used to me being remote was a "telepresence". As I mentioned, we have pretty good video conferencing infrastructure, so we put a VC unit in my office and another in the area where the rest of my team sits, and we left them connected all day long. It provided a virtual window between my office and theirs so I could hear and participate in their conversations, at least when they were at or near their desks.
A couple of years sounds good to me.
Keep in mind that "a couple of years" has a tremendous lifetime impact. The problem is that any crime that carries a maximum sentence of one year or more is a felony. Felonies dog you for life, and in many cases make you unemployable in your chosen profession.
So, culture matters.
I wouldn't call it a question of culture, just prevalence.
The interesting thing about attempting to be a driver of cultural change from office to remote work is that it is sort of impossible to drive change while simultaneously leading by example.
The way Louis Gerstner did it was to (1) tell everyone to work from home and (2) sell all the office space. I have no idea whether he worked in an office or from home when he did it, but I doubt it made any difference either way. I understand that IBM did find it a little difficult to make the transition in some places outside of the US, though. In the US, reasonably well-paid employees tend to have homes that are large enough that they can carve out a home office. In some other countries that isn't true. I met a couple of Japanese IBMers who tried to make it work by placing a board over the kitchen sink and working there, but it just wasn't practical.
I've worked remotely for most the last 20 years, in two different companies, Google and IBM. The two experiences have been very different.
My current employer is Google, and I've been working from home full time, 500 miles from the nearest office, for the last three years. Google has great tools for remote work, including an excellent video conferencing system (Google Video Conferencing (GVC), essentially an enterprise version of Google Hangouts) that is deployed in all conference rooms, with good cameras, microphones and screens. I have a dedicated GVC unit in my home office, a Chromebox connected to a touchscreen, so it's trivial for me to be remotely added to all meetings. Also, Google runs on e-mail, all documents are in Google Docs with its great collaboration/sharing features, and a great deal of informal communication occurs over Hangouts chat. For software engineers like me, a tremendous amount of communication also occurs via the bug tracker and in the code review tools.
So... it would seem that it would be easy to work remotely at Google. It's not. The tools are great, and in fact a lot of people I work with don't even realize that I'm remote because Googlers rarely meet the people they interact with only occasionally. But the company philosophy is that co-locating all of your employees is the best way for them to be productive and maximizes opportunistic interactions that spark creative ideas, so there are very, very few people who work remotely like I do. I recently came across a shared spreadsheet where NetOps tracks all of the people who, like me, have VPN systems configured for access to the engineering VLAN. There are 14 of us, out of ~25,000 engineers.
Because there are so few people working remotely, most Googlers simply don’t give any thought to how to manage their interactions with someone they never see in person. The people I work with only occasionally are no problem; everyone expects those interactions to be electronic anyway. The people I work with closely are no problem; they adapt. But it’s a challenge to keep my presence and concerns visible to those who fall in between. My approach is to try to overcommunicate via email, etc., and to travel to Mountain View regularly (roughly one week out of six) and make sure I get face time with everyone while I’m there. It works, but it’s definitely less efficient and I regularly find that I miss out on important bits of information that everyone else knows.
For perhaps 10 of my 15 years with IBM I worked from home full time. The tools weren’t nearly as good as what I have today at Google. We did use chat a lot (Lotus SameTime), and email was a communications staple, but we didn’t have good document collaboration tools (we emailed MS Office docs, mostly), issue tracking or code review systems. We did a lot of teleconferences.
But working remotely for IBM was at least an order of magnitude easier than working remotely for Google. Why? Because everyone I worked with was also working from home. Everyone understood that if you needed to communicate something, you had to put it in an email, you couldn’t rely on chance meetings at the micro kitchen or in the halls. Everyone expected that during meetings they could expect random house noises, dogs barking, kids playing, whatever. Not that my colleagues at Google ever complain -- or, I’m sure, would ever even think to complain -- but I can’t help but recognize that when random interruptions occur they’re always coming from me and that therefore it’s my job to minimize them.
While working remotely at IBM, I rarely traveled to see other employees (actually, I think it would have been good to do it a little bit more). I really only met the other IBMers I worked with when we attended meetings at customer sites... but even most of our customer meetings were via teleconference.
Another difference was that at IBM it was expected that people might have slow-ish Internet connections. At Google
real threat is what happened with Sanders (i'm not his supporter _at all_). it was a scandalous perversion of democracy.
Bah.
I don't care about Sanders, but there would be no impact on democracy if the Democratic party just skipped the primaries entirely and picked who they want to run. The primaries aren't part of the legally-defined election process, they're just a mechanism that the parties have chosen to use, and if they want to choose some other method, or to set up a method and then ignore it or pay lip service to it while subverting it, they're perfectly free to do that. If it makes party members mad, they can always go form their own party, which can use whatever process it likes to pick a candidate. Goat entrails, deals in smoke-filled back rooms, lotteries... or primary elections, they're all fine.
You appear to confuse sarcasm with humor.
Phones work while they are charging.
Go to your nearest Apple Genius Bar for further help using your iPhone.
So, then just sit in your car with the phone. What a brilliant solution you have there.
Phones can be charged places other than cars. There are even portable battery packs.
In reality, though, this is a non-problem. If you're at a supercharger station it's because you've been driving a long distance, and almost certainly had your phone charging in the car while driving. Also, even without the phone notification, when you plug your car in to charge you get a fairly decent estimate of what time it will be finished... so just be back to the car around then.
5 minutes grace is a bit harsh. 20 minutes would allow you to get the notification (bad signal), return to the car from the nearby shops and move.
Five minutes is fine. You already have a pretty good estimate of what time your car will finish charging, so you should plan to be back near the car around that time anyway.
There's a very easy way to make it objectively less attractive to work here, without touching wages or standard of living (well, the cost of goods produced with cheap illegal immigrant labor will go up). All you have to do is ensure that no Americans will hire illegals because the risk of doing so is too high. First step: attach criminal penalties, including non-trivial jail time, to knowingly hiring undocumented workers, and impose heavy fines on those who hired them without doing their due diligence.
People risk serious jail time and fines all the time.
Not when getting caught is virtually guaranteed.
Moreover, it will be trivial to fake "due dilligence" with bogus paperwork, not to mention all the ways that business can be done under the table.
Won't matter if getting caught is almost guaranteed and the fines are heavy.
Then you will have the uphill battle of getting juries to put rich people in jail. If you think that "regular people" are not going to bend over backwards to look the other way when rich people break the law and/or screw them over just look at who those rubes just put in the Oval Office.
People aren't going to decide that they can risk getting caught and prosecuted just because the jury might be friendly.
Your idea will not work.
Perhaps not, but none of your arguments hold water, so you still haven't made a case as to why not.
Pick a number pretty much any number, double it, somebody will pay that.
There won't be an overpopulation problem because only .001% of the population will be able to afford it.
Well, if the technique these scientists used is how it's done, the treatment won't be particularly expensive. It'll have to be done by genetic engineering of embryos, or even germ cells (eggs or sperm). The genetic modification process isn't that expensive, but the modified embryo will have to be implanted, etc., so the process will look almost exactly like in vitro fertilization, plus a little. That would put it easily within the reach of the middle class in wealthy countries, and assuming everyone who could afford it wanted to do it, economies of scale would probably drive that cost down to where nearly everyone in wealthy countries could afford it.
I see absolutely nothing in the description of the process that would make it incredibly expensive, so why do you think it would be so pricey?
The bigger barrier is ethical questions around human genetic engineering, but I expect we'll decide that this sort is a good thing.
There is always a limit to growth, and if history shows us anything, it is that the limit is quite often a lot closer than we like to imagine.
What history shows us that? Certainly not the history of human population.
The fact that a car is autonomous will not affect the cost model significantly.
How can you seriously argue that having to pay a driver doesn't affect the cost model significantly? Drivers are the largest expense for taxi operations, more than cars, more than maintenance, more than medallions (once the medallion cost is amortized over enough years).
I could today call a taxi to take me everywhere but I don't. It's more expensive to do that than it is to own a car in most of the US.
It's more expensive and, even more important, it's less convenient. Autonomous vehicles change both of those facts. I think the biggest thing that will change them is that many car owners will find it convenient and very cost-effective to turn their vehicles over to a ride-sharing service to generate income during the periods of time when they themselves don't need the car. Why park the car in the office parking lot when it can drop you off and then go off to make money for you?
But the effect of widespread deployment of cars in ridesharing systems will massively increase the supply of available rides for those who don't own cars, and will also push the cost of rides down to little more than the amortized cost of the car and its maintenance. The increase in supply will mean that you can get a car within 30 seconds or so of ordering it from your phone. That convenience and the low cost of rides will make more and more people opt out of car ownership themselves.
Everybody will need a car at roughly the same time and those extra cars are going to be mostly idle just like they are now between commutes.
No, because the systems can easily arrange for multiple people to be picked up by each car. Coordinating the pickups and dropoffs to minimize passenger delays is a complex optimization problem, but it's fairly easy to achieve "good enough" solutions which will seriously reduce the number of vehicles on the road. There will still be more vehicles needed during rush hour than the rest of the day, but the disparity will be reduced significantly as compared to what it is today.
Following the rules is the responsibility of the operator. Setting the rules is the responsibility of the government. In this case the government has set a rule, so why do you think Uber should be exempt from this rule and not from all the others?
I don't think Uber is arguing that it's exempt from this rule. It's arguing that the rules in place don't require a permit because they have a human driver behind the wheel.
The fact that the bureaucrats from the relevant government agency disagree doesn't mean they're right. Such bureaucrats are charged with administering and enforcing the rules defined in the law, and in some cases the law specifically delegates certain rulemaking authorities to them, but even then they don't get to just make rules arbitrarily, they have to write them down and publish them as regulations. There's usually a regulation-making process which includes public comment, etc.
So if Uber's attorneys have examined the relevant laws and regulations and they believe that Uber does not, in fact, need a permit, then they're free to proceed. If the DMV disagrees, it can take action in court, where a judge may grant an injunction to either stop or allow Uber from proceeding while the question is properly adjudicated.
Note that I'm not claiming that Uber doesn't need a permit. I don't know, and neither do you. I'm just saying that it doesn't look to me like Uber is asking to be exempt from any rules, but instead claiming that the rules don't say they need a permit.
You explained why my proposal is unnecessary and possibly a bad idea, not why it won't work. If you really want to end the vast majority of illegal immigration, it absolutely will work, and it'll be one hell of a lot cheaper and more effective than a big wall. I, personally, don't care about ending illegal immigration. Or, rather, my ideal world proposal would be to end it by removing restrictions on immigration. But for those who want to end it, there's a cheap and easy solution which they don't like because it's insufficiently punitive.
I'm good with just opening the doors to unlimited immigration, but my proposal is intended to strike a balance that would make it attractive to those who are deeply opposed to that approach.
There are some undocumented workers using faked or stolen identities, sure. But there are a lot more who work completely under the table and, no, they do *not* make minimum wage.
Your argument makes absolutely no sense. If fruit growers need to pay more to hire people, they'll pay more to hire people, no government coercion required.