Ah, so now saying "Hey, would you sign this?" is called 'earning something'? If you've indeed had a lot of training as you imply, I feel sorry for you. Truly, the idea of wearing a fitness tracker during training is something that should have never entered your mind and apparently your trainers have not been able to instill such wisdom in you.
No you're not. You're taking an opportunity for some recreational outrage so you can feel superior.
No. I take martial arts seriously, have taught several of them (albeit as a substitute in most cases) and have seen many people with various flaws in their demeanor, with lack of respect for (the safety of) their training buddies being the worst. Most 'accidents' are the result of such flaws.
A lesson you have obviously not learned: be humble and respectful to everybody.
There's a Dutch proverb which roughly translates to "Mild physician, putrid wound." Also: I like to call out stupid shit when I see it.
I did not suggest people wear them
This is true. You did not explicitly suggest it, but you definitely implied that it was a reasonable (if unwise) thing to do. Some Slashdotters might read this: "I've considered wearing them around my shoulder or ankle however I'm not sure you can do that with them", think "Challenge accepted!" and subsequently some trainers somewhere could have to deal with jackasses wearing fitness trackers while training.
I have Gracie signatures on two of my old belts, so go figure out how far, so far.
Christ, who gives a fuck about signatures? Even if you'd have mentioned the color of the belts, it would have meant little. You are focused on entirely the wrong things.
jeez mate, chillout.
I'm just trying to prevent people from trying the same stupid shit.
One of the first things you (are supposed to) learn in martial arts is "when training, take off your jewelry, watches, etc." Failing to comply with that is potentially dangerous and disrespectful to everybody you are training with. Suggesting wearing a fitness tracker is fueling bad behavior (although only highly unprofessional trainers would even allow it).
He must be an absolute beginner. No martial artist worth his salt is retarded enough to wear anything but the required gear for that art. You know: "They also injure training partners." Yeah, no shit, Sherlock (-GP).
It's about more and more of our skills becoming obsolete. It is inevitable that (anorganic) non-humans will at some point be better than us in everything
We're not there yet and it is debatable how long it will take before we get there but again: it is inevitable that we will get there. That is, unless you believe (and can prove) that humans will always be better than anything in something. The fact of the matter is that the human body is a general purpose platform that has evolved for survival in an earthlike environment, which makes it highly unlikely to (permanently) excel at specific things. Don't get me wrong, the human body is a marvel and I like a lot of things about my specific body, but to consider it the epitome of what the universe can create would be nothing but arrogance.
The above is why your argument needs additional support that in this specific instance the human skills that will not have been superseded by those of non-humans (both technically and economically) are sufficiently untapped to (economically!) offset the skills that have been or will shortly be superseded.
For the Luddites, that support is provided trivially. The entire skillset derived from intelligence, cognition and dexterity was still highly untapped at that point.
Humans have been trumped in dexterity (and numerical processing for that matter) for a long time now, but in tasks where cognition is highly necessary for the dexterity to be useful we still have a leg up. The (specialized) dexterity and strength of robots has relied on very simple specialized sensing and strict constraints to function. Only now are we getting to a place where powerful (visual) cognition is getting close to being precise enough to coordinate robot dexterity in complex ways. There is a huge difference between knowing that the hole for the screw is going to be at exactly x,y,z (or using lasers to detect whether there is a hole at that location) and just looking at the thing and recognizing the hole, knowing where it is and how to move the arm to put the screw in the hole. In essence, I'm talking about 'hand' 'eye' coordination.
This is very relevant in the self-driving cars area. The hard part about driving is not (really) knowing what decisions to make, given certain circumstances. The hard part is situational awareness, specifically by looking at the environment, knowing what is what and how it will behave.
So forget about the AI-bit for a few years (although it is very relevant in this discussion). In the short term we're about to be surpassed in the area of 'hand'-'eye'-coordination. And that is not a small thing.
Viruses are a very low form of life. They aren't even single-cellular. It's even debatable whether viruses can be considered life forms at all. Considering that pretty much nobody gives a rat's ass about endangered plant species, ecological conservationism is clearly not going to kick in for viruses, which renders the comparison ineffective. Stating that variola is technically a species would just be pedantry.
It is a poorly written poorly founded bit of conjecture. The idea seems to be that rainforests would be commercially (and destructively) exploited much faster if it weren't for those meddling mosquitoes.
Science writer David Quammen has argued that mosquitoes have limited the destructive impact of humanity on nature. "Mosquitoes make tropical rainforests, for humans, virtually uninhabitable," he said.
This line of reasoning is just too flimsy to get into. The submission expanding on that already highly questionable bit of logic by implying that commercial entities might actively try to eradicate mosquitoes to be able to exploit the rainforests makes the whole thing even worse.
There is a difference between murder and manslaughter.
I'm not trying to make some emotional argument with that, just pointing out why people may perceive the extinction of species differently in this case.
Nope. Officially it's now: Process-Architecture-Optimization, but tick-tack-tock is what some people are calling it, with the tack having been tacked on there to allow selling 'refreshes' of processors with the same architecture and process whilst giving the impression of meaningful progress.
A lot of people are depending on seemingly infinite processing power to get real AI.
Actually, pretty much everybody in the AI-world is convinced that running AI on general purpose computing hardware is very inefficient and that artificial neuron like-hardware is the future for fast AI.
I get the presence of the engineer and co-pilot are temporary its still kinda funny though
No, it isn't. Any other way to introduce this technology would be stupid and reckless.
They also haven't replaced the driver with an engineer and co-pilot. They (will) have replaced the driver with self-driving software. That is the 'proposed solution'. Whether or not they'll pull it off with this experiment is a different story. I'm actually quite skeptical of that.
What you propose would be superannoying, namely having to take an extra step to go to the downloads folder and then run the file. At that point the OS doesn't even know that it was a file just downloaded from the internet which would make showing a warning dialog at that point even more annoying as it would have to do so for every executable, always.
Wrong. "Just no need to have that much in a car [...] unless you want to use a flow battery as a local energy source, [then there is currently clearly the need for that amount of liquid in a car]. Which is kind of the thing we're discussing here."
You do understand that a car needs a local energy source to be able to achieve motion, don't you?
Anyone with half a brain understood what I meant. The statement "Just no need to have that much in a car" was and is a ridiculous thing to say, which is what I was pointing out.
I clearly meant: "Unless you want to use a flow battery as a local energy source [in a car]". The addition of 'local' was to preempt attempted pedantry from people saying "batteries are not energy sources!"
I have to say that your lack of reading comprehension is exhausting.
I will reiterate: "Just no need to have that much in a car." is nonsense, as I have shown.
I admit to having little knowledge about them, but I think flow batteries have great potential.
The numbers are probably exaggerated, but these guys claim a range of 1000km in a car with a total of 350 liters of fluid storage. That would mean an energy density of roughly 1/7th of gasoline. That isn't stellar, but it's also far from 'useless crap'-territory. It would be fine for at least industrial energy storage (from renewable sources), it seems.
Let me reiterate this, though: I'm far from an expert on these things.
Slashdot Mirror
People who earn them.
Ah, so now saying "Hey, would you sign this?" is called 'earning something'?
If you've indeed had a lot of training as you imply, I feel sorry for you. Truly, the idea of wearing a fitness tracker during training is something that should have never entered your mind and apparently your trainers have not been able to instill such wisdom in you.
No you're not. You're taking an opportunity for some recreational outrage so you can feel superior.
No. I take martial arts seriously, have taught several of them (albeit as a substitute in most cases) and have seen many people with various flaws in their demeanor, with lack of respect for (the safety of) their training buddies being the worst. Most 'accidents' are the result of such flaws.
A lesson you have obviously not learned: be humble and respectful to everybody.
There's a Dutch proverb which roughly translates to "Mild physician, putrid wound."
Also: I like to call out stupid shit when I see it.
I did not suggest people wear them
This is true. You did not explicitly suggest it, but you definitely implied that it was a reasonable (if unwise) thing to do. Some Slashdotters might read this: "I've considered wearing them around my shoulder or ankle however I'm not sure you can do that with them", think "Challenge accepted!" and subsequently some trainers somewhere could have to deal with jackasses wearing fitness trackers while training.
I have Gracie signatures on two of my old belts, so go figure out how far, so far.
Christ, who gives a fuck about signatures? Even if you'd have mentioned the color of the belts, it would have meant little. You are focused on entirely the wrong things.
jeez mate, chillout.
I'm just trying to prevent people from trying the same stupid shit.
One of the first things you (are supposed to) learn in martial arts is "when training, take off your jewelry, watches, etc."
Failing to comply with that is potentially dangerous and disrespectful to everybody you are training with. Suggesting wearing a fitness tracker is fueling bad behavior (although only highly unprofessional trainers would even allow it).
He must be an absolute beginner. No martial artist worth his salt is retarded enough to wear anything but the required gear for that art.
You know: "They also injure training partners."
Yeah, no shit, Sherlock (-GP).
With some DVD's the resulting x264 and xvid conversions didn't differ much in size (with equal quality)
I think this will benefit you: https://www.specsavers.com/
It's about more and more of our skills becoming obsolete. It is inevitable that (anorganic) non-humans will at some point be better than us in everything
We're not there yet and it is debatable how long it will take before we get there but again: it is inevitable that we will get there. That is, unless you believe (and can prove) that humans will always be better than anything in something. The fact of the matter is that the human body is a general purpose platform that has evolved for survival in an earthlike environment, which makes it highly unlikely to (permanently) excel at specific things. Don't get me wrong, the human body is a marvel and I like a lot of things about my specific body, but to consider it the epitome of what the universe can create would be nothing but arrogance.
The above is why your argument needs additional support that in this specific instance the human skills that will not have been superseded by those of non-humans (both technically and economically) are sufficiently untapped to (economically!) offset the skills that have been or will shortly be superseded.
For the Luddites, that support is provided trivially. The entire skillset derived from intelligence, cognition and dexterity was still highly untapped at that point.
Humans have been trumped in dexterity (and numerical processing for that matter) for a long time now, but in tasks where cognition is highly necessary for the dexterity to be useful we still have a leg up. The (specialized) dexterity and strength of robots has relied on very simple specialized sensing and strict constraints to function. Only now are we getting to a place where powerful (visual) cognition is getting close to being precise enough to coordinate robot dexterity in complex ways. There is a huge difference between knowing that the hole for the screw is going to be at exactly x,y,z (or using lasers to detect whether there is a hole at that location) and just looking at the thing and recognizing the hole, knowing where it is and how to move the arm to put the screw in the hole. In essence, I'm talking about 'hand' 'eye' coordination.
This is very relevant in the self-driving cars area. The hard part about driving is not (really) knowing what decisions to make, given certain circumstances. The hard part is situational awareness, specifically by looking at the environment, knowing what is what and how it will behave.
So forget about the AI-bit for a few years (although it is very relevant in this discussion). In the short term we're about to be surpassed in the area of 'hand'-'eye'-coordination. And that is not a small thing.
User CSS to fix it:
body[data-spf-name="watch"] #player {
position: fixed;
top: 60px;
z-index: 3;
left: 50%;
margin-left: -501px;
}
Viruses are a very low form of life. They aren't even single-cellular. It's even debatable whether viruses can be considered life forms at all. Considering that pretty much nobody gives a rat's ass about endangered plant species, ecological conservationism is clearly not going to kick in for viruses, which renders the comparison ineffective. Stating that variola is technically a species would just be pedantry.
Yes, it's not completely applicable, but still classic and cathartic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
How exactly does that pertain to my point?
It is a poorly written poorly founded bit of conjecture. The idea seems to be that rainforests would be commercially (and destructively) exploited much faster if it weren't for those meddling mosquitoes.
Science writer David Quammen has argued that mosquitoes have limited the destructive impact of humanity on nature. "Mosquitoes make tropical rainforests, for humans, virtually uninhabitable," he said.
This line of reasoning is just too flimsy to get into. The submission expanding on that already highly questionable bit of logic by implying that commercial entities might actively try to eradicate mosquitoes to be able to exploit the rainforests makes the whole thing even worse.
There is a difference between murder and manslaughter.
I'm not trying to make some emotional argument with that, just pointing out why people may perceive the extinction of species differently in this case.
Nope. Officially it's now: Process-Architecture-Optimization, but tick-tack-tock is what some people are calling it, with the tack having been tacked on there to allow selling 'refreshes' of processors with the same architecture and process whilst giving the impression of meaningful progress.
A lot of people are depending on seemingly infinite processing power to get real AI.
Actually, pretty much everybody in the AI-world is convinced that running AI on general purpose computing hardware is very inefficient and that artificial neuron like-hardware is the future for fast AI.
I can see you're much better at swearing than at reasoning or even basic civility.
You waste my time.
Goodbye.
I get the presence of the engineer and co-pilot are temporary its still kinda funny though
No, it isn't. Any other way to introduce this technology would be stupid and reckless.
They also haven't replaced the driver with an engineer and co-pilot. They (will) have replaced the driver with self-driving software. That is the 'proposed solution'. Whether or not they'll pull it off with this experiment is a different story. I'm actually quite skeptical of that.
That is a counterexample.
What you propose would be superannoying, namely having to take an extra step to go to the downloads folder and then run the file. At that point the OS doesn't even know that it was a file just downloaded from the internet which would make showing a warning dialog at that point even more annoying as it would have to do so for every executable, always.
Also, please keep your ad hominems to yourself.
99% of the time they are bullshit
So are seatbelts.
But perhaps you can enlighten us with examples of 'problems the developers should have fixed'?
Wrong.
"Just no need to have that much in a car [...] unless you want to use a flow battery as a local energy source, [then there is currently clearly the need for that amount of liquid in a car]. Which is kind of the thing we're discussing here."
You do understand that a car needs a local energy source to be able to achieve motion, don't you?
Anyone with half a brain understood what I meant. The statement "Just no need to have that much in a car" was and is a ridiculous thing to say, which is what I was pointing out.
Goodbye.
I clearly meant: "Unless you want to use a flow battery as a local energy source [in a car]".
The addition of 'local' was to preempt attempted pedantry from people saying "batteries are not energy sources!"
I have to say that your lack of reading comprehension is exhausting.
I will reiterate: "Just no need to have that much in a car." is nonsense, as I have shown.
As far as flow batteries in cars, I don't know what shift you are trying to make, but the discussion was clearly a flow battery in a vehicle.
What?
You were the one that said this: "Just no need to have that much in a car."
That is nonsense, which was my point. Read it again.
I was not referring to mr. Khan. I was exposing your shitty logic which amounts to "disagree with me and you're not a patriot!"
Answer the question.
Give it some air space
Why would you do that?
If I'm not mistaken flow batteries are a closed system when in operation: the liquids are not used up (like gasoline).
Just no need to have that much in a car.
Unless you want to use a flow battery as a local energy source. Which is kind of the thing we're discussing here.
But carrying about 350 litres of liquid doesn't make sense unless we are talking about some sort of large truck for transport.
Why? I think the Tesla S batteries have a comparable volume and weight and those certainly seem to make sense.
Also, given that we're talking about liquid 'refueling', range becomes much less of a problem (for cars, at least).
I admit to having little knowledge about them, but I think flow batteries have great potential.
The numbers are probably exaggerated, but these guys claim a range of 1000km in a car with a total of 350 liters of fluid storage. That would mean an energy density of roughly 1/7th of gasoline. That isn't stellar, but it's also far from 'useless crap'-territory. It would be fine for at least industrial energy storage (from renewable sources), it seems.
Let me reiterate this, though: I'm far from an expert on these things.