"World demand for energy increased by 2.1% last year, and low-carbon sources could not keep pace. As a result, the word's energy-related carbon emissions rose by 1.7%, the first rise in four years. It's an important reminder that, despite all the talk about the growth of renewables, we still rely heavily on fossil fuels."
World demand increased by 2.1%, resulting in carbon emissions rising by 1.7%, so that means that new renewable energy only contributed 0.4%? We are truly on the verge of eliminating fossil fuels completely!
I just sit back and laugh at all the left-wing nuts calling the right-wing nuts nazis while demanding that the government take away guns from the citizens, leaving the current government in power as the only ones left with arms....
It's along the same line as my mother never understanding the irony of calling me a son of a bitch...
Of course it is... normally all of the uploaded conversations are stored on Amazon's servers, not sent as voicemails to someone on the contact list. Completely isolated incident..
Typical liberal response. I've posted multiple links showing you proof of my statements, but you won't ever allow your opinions to be swayed by facts. I'm done responding to you, post all you want. Bye Felicia!
So much ignorance in this response I don't know where to start....
1.) Any child labor is forced child labor. If they don't have the mental capacity to handle alcohol, consent to sex, own firearms, vote, join the military, then they don't have the mental capacity to agree to a 12x6 workday either. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/i...
2.) Read up just a little bit on Foxconn, if you don't think that's force labor you're just sticking your head in the sand. Walled compounds, workers unable to come and go. High rates of suicide. The list goes on... https://www.theguardian.com/te...
3.) Taiwan is as much a part of China as Puerto Rico is a part of the U.S.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Just stop trying to justify your continued purchase of Apple products to assuage your own guilty conscience. Or provide proof for any of your claims you've made so far. The one quote you provided has no reference, so I'll assume not just the emphasis is yours, but the words as well.
So the CEO of a company that relies on low tariffs to justify outsourcing their products to be manufactured by forced child laborers has advised against raising tariffs on their products coming back into the country. Imagine that....
Ethics is completely irrational and forces us to make choices that go against human nature more often than not. If you believe in no after-life, no superior being waiting to judge your actions during your lifetime, what possible motive is there for ethics? How do you not grab all you can while you can to make your time here as pleasurable as possible? Ethics is the denial of doing what feels good or what you want in the moment based on a set of morals that have been decided by others. Ethics is about making the choices that separate us from the animals.
Example: A mother with a toddler only has enough food to feed one of them, not both. Logic would dictate that the mother eat as she is much more probable to find more food, thus enabling them both to live. But ethically? What parent would feed themselves while allowing their child to starve?
"Since December, the New York Police Department said, 21 Chinese immigrants had lost a total of $2.5 million.'
That's ~$120,000 per person? I think the scammers found their niche market!
From the article, it's when a cell phone is not in range of service but someone calling it still hears a ring tone as though it's ringing on the other end of the line, rather than a "that device is not available currently. Please try back later" message.
The only danger to my health is being forced to be a morning person as a condition of continued employment. Used to work a graveyard shift from 10pm - 6am, was never tired. All I can do to stay awake during the day.
It wouldn't be more useful. Arrested criminals can already be forced to give up passwords despite the 5th amendment and it's been upheld by the Supreme Court. A living finger works a lot easier than a dead one. Cops might have to break a few of the unnecessary fingers to get compliance, but they'll get it unlocked whether the hand is alive or not.
I can see you thought out a well reasoned and logical retort. To respond to your definition of "a BS ethical question" imagine if you will....
A self driving vehicle is driving on a highway with a posted speed limit sign of 65 mph. The vehicle is tracking and monitoring all traffic and pedestrians around it. A child on a bicycle darts out 10 feet in front of the vehicle. Next to the vehicle is another vehicle with an elderly person in it. An example of an ethical question in this case would be "do you swerve into the vehicle carrying the elderly person or run over the child?" The self-driving car has broken no laws at this point, but simple physics would prevent it from avoiding injuring or possibly killing one or the other.
And yes, parking lots don't have a speed limit of 65mph, but highways do. Once you've progressed past the point of sitting on daddy's knee to drive around the parking lot you'll learn these things.
The police have said that even reviewing the video the pedestrian is walking in shadow until they step out into the lane of traffic. A human driver texting on their smartphone in one hand and stuffing a double 1/4 pounder into their face with the other would have had a much slower reaction time. They likely wouldn't even have noticed they ran someone over until the next time they stopped for gas.
Those are valid ethical questions that have to be answered by the AI and the programmers. If a car is forced to make a choice between killing a squirrel or killing a child, will it treat them the same? How will it choose if it has to decide between killing 4 people or 1?
Bit simplistic... She was jaywalking. Courts in most any district will give the benefit of the doubt to the one following the law. Was the car driving at or under the posted speed? Then if she darted between two cars the car is not at fault, the pedestrian is.
It will be interesting to see the legal ramifications of this as well. Is the human that was behind the wheel responsible? The owner of the vehicle (Uber)? The manufacturer of the self-driving system?
So many missing details here. Was it raining causing limited visibility? Did she dart out between two cars right in front of the moving vehicle? Was she crossing and then doubled back? Did the human behind the wheel have time to try and react?
The good thing about this being an autonomous vehicle is that there are likely cameras and sensors all around the vehicle that will be able to tell investigators exactly what happened.
And while jaywalking is certainly not a capital offense, it's hard to argue that this would have happened if she'd been in a recognizable crosswalk with as many miles and hours as have been racked up by self-driving vehicles already.
"Models that factor in just sea level rise predict that at least 20 square miles could be underwater by 2100. Once you add in subsiding land, that jumps to nearly 50 square miles, and could get as bad as 165 square miles. Or, put another way, by the end of the century, half of the runways and taxiways at San Francisco Airport could be submerged. "
So.. you know, it could be 20 square miles... it could be 50 square miles... or it could be 165 square miles.... according to you know, models.... in 80 years when we'll all be dead...
My prediction: In 80 years it will be one... *pinky in corner of mouth*...BILLION square miles.... prove me wrong!
There is no such thing as free. Governments are not a source of revenue. Anytime anyone says the government will provide something for "free" they'd be much more accurate if they'd instead say "paid for by someone else that is compelled by the government under threat of force and/or imprisonment."
I'm sure this will get down-modded repeatedly because we're at a point where over 50% of people are receiving "free" stuff from the government.
Slashdot Mirror
"World demand for energy increased by 2.1% last year, and low-carbon sources could not keep pace. As a result, the word's energy-related carbon emissions rose by 1.7%, the first rise in four years. It's an important reminder that, despite all the talk about the growth of renewables, we still rely heavily on fossil fuels."
World demand increased by 2.1%, resulting in carbon emissions rising by 1.7%, so that means that new renewable energy only contributed 0.4%? We are truly on the verge of eliminating fossil fuels completely!
I just sit back and laugh at all the left-wing nuts calling the right-wing nuts nazis while demanding that the government take away guns from the citizens, leaving the current government in power as the only ones left with arms....
It's along the same line as my mother never understanding the irony of calling me a son of a bitch...
Of course it is... normally all of the uploaded conversations are stored on Amazon's servers, not sent as voicemails to someone on the contact list. Completely isolated incident..
Wondering if they'll replace it with TrendMicro, because that would be so much more secure....
Typical liberal response. I've posted multiple links showing you proof of my statements, but you won't ever allow your opinions to be swayed by facts. I'm done responding to you, post all you want. Bye Felicia!
So much ignorance in this response I don't know where to start....
1.) Any child labor is forced child labor. If they don't have the mental capacity to handle alcohol, consent to sex, own firearms, vote, join the military, then they don't have the mental capacity to agree to a 12x6 workday either. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/i...
2.) Read up just a little bit on Foxconn, if you don't think that's force labor you're just sticking your head in the sand. Walled compounds, workers unable to come and go. High rates of suicide. The list goes on... https://www.theguardian.com/te...
3.) Taiwan is as much a part of China as Puerto Rico is a part of the U.S.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Just stop trying to justify your continued purchase of Apple products to assuage your own guilty conscience. Or provide proof for any of your claims you've made so far. The one quote you provided has no reference, so I'll assume not just the emphasis is yours, but the words as well.
Hate to shatter your illusion as an i-Phile fanboy, but it doesn't take a whole lot of research to come to that conclusion:
http://www.dw.com/en/foxconn-a...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...
https://nypost.com/2017/11/21/...
So the CEO of a company that relies on low tariffs to justify outsourcing their products to be manufactured by forced child laborers has advised against raising tariffs on their products coming back into the country. Imagine that....
Ethics is completely irrational and forces us to make choices that go against human nature more often than not. If you believe in no after-life, no superior being waiting to judge your actions during your lifetime, what possible motive is there for ethics? How do you not grab all you can while you can to make your time here as pleasurable as possible? Ethics is the denial of doing what feels good or what you want in the moment based on a set of morals that have been decided by others. Ethics is about making the choices that separate us from the animals.
Example: A mother with a toddler only has enough food to feed one of them, not both. Logic would dictate that the mother eat as she is much more probable to find more food, thus enabling them both to live. But ethically? What parent would feed themselves while allowing their child to starve?
"Since December, the New York Police Department said, 21 Chinese immigrants had lost a total of $2.5 million.'
That's ~$120,000 per person? I think the scammers found their niche market!
From the article, it's when a cell phone is not in range of service but someone calling it still hears a ring tone as though it's ringing on the other end of the line, rather than a "that device is not available currently. Please try back later" message.
The only danger to my health is being forced to be a morning person as a condition of continued employment. Used to work a graveyard shift from 10pm - 6am, was never tired. All I can do to stay awake during the day.
It wouldn't be more useful. Arrested criminals can already be forced to give up passwords despite the 5th amendment and it's been upheld by the Supreme Court. A living finger works a lot easier than a dead one. Cops might have to break a few of the unnecessary fingers to get compliance, but they'll get it unlocked whether the hand is alive or not.
No, guns are the CURRENT problem. Once they've banned those and murders are still happening they'll get around to knives and trucks.
I can see you thought out a well reasoned and logical retort. To respond to your definition of "a BS ethical question" imagine if you will....
A self driving vehicle is driving on a highway with a posted speed limit sign of 65 mph. The vehicle is tracking and monitoring all traffic and pedestrians around it. A child on a bicycle darts out 10 feet in front of the vehicle. Next to the vehicle is another vehicle with an elderly person in it. An example of an ethical question in this case would be "do you swerve into the vehicle carrying the elderly person or run over the child?" The self-driving car has broken no laws at this point, but simple physics would prevent it from avoiding injuring or possibly killing one or the other.
And yes, parking lots don't have a speed limit of 65mph, but highways do. Once you've progressed past the point of sitting on daddy's knee to drive around the parking lot you'll learn these things.
The police have said that even reviewing the video the pedestrian is walking in shadow until they step out into the lane of traffic. A human driver texting on their smartphone in one hand and stuffing a double 1/4 pounder into their face with the other would have had a much slower reaction time. They likely wouldn't even have noticed they ran someone over until the next time they stopped for gas.
You forgot to put a "lol" or "=-)" at the end of your post
Those are valid ethical questions that have to be answered by the AI and the programmers. If a car is forced to make a choice between killing a squirrel or killing a child, will it treat them the same? How will it choose if it has to decide between killing 4 people or 1?
http://www.alllaw.com/articles...
Bit simplistic... She was jaywalking. Courts in most any district will give the benefit of the doubt to the one following the law. Was the car driving at or under the posted speed? Then if she darted between two cars the car is not at fault, the pedestrian is.
It will be interesting to see the legal ramifications of this as well. Is the human that was behind the wheel responsible? The owner of the vehicle (Uber)? The manufacturer of the self-driving system?
So many missing details here. Was it raining causing limited visibility? Did she dart out between two cars right in front of the moving vehicle? Was she crossing and then doubled back? Did the human behind the wheel have time to try and react?
The good thing about this being an autonomous vehicle is that there are likely cameras and sensors all around the vehicle that will be able to tell investigators exactly what happened.
And while jaywalking is certainly not a capital offense, it's hard to argue that this would have happened if she'd been in a recognizable crosswalk with as many miles and hours as have been racked up by self-driving vehicles already.
"Models that factor in just sea level rise predict that at least 20 square miles could be underwater by 2100. Once you add in subsiding land, that jumps to nearly 50 square miles, and could get as bad as 165 square miles. Or, put another way, by the end of the century, half of the runways and taxiways at San Francisco Airport could be submerged. "
...BILLION square miles.... prove me wrong!
So.. you know, it could be 20 square miles... it could be 50 square miles... or it could be 165 square miles.... according to you know, models.... in 80 years when we'll all be dead...
My prediction: In 80 years it will be one... *pinky in corner of mouth*
Um, Yes!
If you crash your car and it's your fault, you are liable. We have people prosecuted for accidental wildfires regularly in Colorado.
There is no such thing as free. Governments are not a source of revenue. Anytime anyone says the government will provide something for "free" they'd be much more accurate if they'd instead say "paid for by someone else that is compelled by the government under threat of force and/or imprisonment."
I'm sure this will get down-modded repeatedly because we're at a point where over 50% of people are receiving "free" stuff from the government.