A stable economy helps lead to a stable government. No guarentees of course; but coups and rebellions and the springing up of terrorist organisations and extremists are all usually linked to impoverished people and/or social inequality in a region.
Get a strong North African economy and you're more likely to see a stable government follow.
Dude, I'm a software engineer. I create the future.
(Also, it has a lot of bugs. The future is pretty damn buggy. Sorry.)
I once worked on software that was used for aircraft maintenance... that's when I was fresh out of university... with a BA. If you see any aircraft with the tail installed upside down... sorry from me too.
It always seemed to me that autonomous submarines would be super useful for military offense. A submarine that doesn't need humans inside can be smaller, faster, quieter, cheaper, and more maneuverable. They could recharge from solar or tidal power, or have nuclear batteries that last decades. But most frighteningly: what if they contained nuclear weapons? You could position them all over the world, nearly undetectable, imminently ready to strike. Port cities are vulnerable yet also valuable.
I don't know that I would trust anything autonomous with nuclear weapons. Even if the tech was foolproof for remote steering and detonation, it takes one person hacking the communication to it and the highest bidder now has nuclear weapons.
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
Don't kid yourself. England and its colonies had slavery too. Just because they ended it fifty years earlier doesn't make them any less guilty.
It means they have 50 years less guilt.
Regardless though, any government that DIDN'T outlaw it and actively try to prevent it was very guilty. Sadly, slavery has been the norm in history not the exception. It's illegal now, but there are still a large number of slaves kept TODAY in a couple of African countries. The is also sexual slavery, which although not exactly the same thing is just as bad, and that is a world-wide problem.
The Arabic empires all had slaves for hundreds of years. Germanic and Nordic people all had slaves pre Christendom. All the classical empires had slaves. Without going back to pre-history, there probably has not been a single day in all human history where one nation or another hasn't had large numbers of slaves.
Many humans are really quite crappy people and will enslave, or take advantage of other people who are weaker than them. Human history is full of one group of people being horrifically nasty to another group. We're a horrible species in many ways when you think about it.
You still know where it's coming from so who cares. Unless you want to put the phone down and not generate business?
Some companies may want to not do business with automated services. After all, it is very easy to fake a robocall (as we all know). How long until people start attacking businesses with fake Google Assistant calls?
Say Bob doesn't like Papa Johns because their CEO said something racist. So Bob sets up a robocall to call every Papa Johns in the US with a fake Google Assistant order every day. That could cost them millions.
Say it isn't something as noble as attacking a racist corp. Say it's because the owner of a company is a Democrat, or a Republican. Or, they have some strange grievance against the business.
Companies are going to want to decide if Computer Calls count as legitimate calls or not.
In America, the bastion of freedom, you criticize speech? Even China is freer than that. Chinese think nothing of what they say, who they say it to, or where they say it. Far more free than America in so many ways.
The same China that is rating citizens on their individual behaviour including what they say and who they say it to? That free China?
Not only is there no freedom of speech- there is no freedom of listening. You get negative social points just for being friends with someone who said something or did something considered bad (which impacts where you can shop, jobs you can get, where you can stay, etc,)
So if I marry, and my kids have my name, the flight is more expensive than if, I spawn kids on a woman, she keeps her name and the kids have random hyphenated names. Or perhaps adopt kids, who keep their names? So the LBWTF couple with adopted kids, gets a discount compared to the old fashioned married family. You wonder why the West is not reproducing.
Unfortunately you're telling me this as a married hetero man. If I knew this 20 years ago I would have been gay and adopted all my children instead. It's just so hard being Hetero having to pay more for kids on airplanes. LBGT have no idea the struggles we go through and the prejudice we face.
Yep. Anytime I'm coming home into Burbank, I always go to the REAR of the plane, because many travelers are unfamiliar with this. Lots of overhead space, and pretty much my choice of seat.
I don't like being near the toilets (which are typically at the rear). You get the smells and the constant people walking past your seat.
A lot of places that embraced bitcoin quickly are already discontinuing it or not supporting it anymore.
It's never really been stable enough to be used properly as a currency. A currency that hops around in value up and down every few days isn't a very useful currency- it's an investment vehicle not a currency.
You realize that nobody can afford new cars at the median price point either right?
That this is the reason used prices are starting to shoot through the roof?
I make well over average income and have never been able to afford a new car, and the most I've ever spent is $12k. Currently trying to keep my girlfriend and I's now-dodgy mid-2000s cars running since I'm not in a position to replace either, even with a newer used car. Not even sure I'd want a car on the market right now, they're all full of computer tech that can't be good for more than 6 or 7 years.
People can't "afford" them but buy them anyone to keep up with the neighbors- all on credit, which hurts them in the end. I've never understood it. I took the sensible route myself and got a nice subcompact for half the median price. I could probably "afford" a $35k+ car/SUV, but then I wouldn't be able to afford something else. I've never felt the need to impress the neighbors by driving a big SUV. A subcompact is all I need, I don't need to impress anyone with a pretty SUV (that I don't actually get to see the outside of when I'm using it).
Fun fact: It actually doesn't cost automakers that much more to build a big car or SUV than a subcompact- but they can add much more markup and make much more profit per vehicle on a larger vehicles which is why automakers try to steer the market larger. They make very thin profits on the bottom tier vehicles (basically loss leaders) and massive profits on the top tier vehicles.
Anyone who rides around in a vehicle that only the 0.01% can afford and claims it is "green" is a complete douchebag, which fits in with Musk fanboys.
The Tesla 3 could probably be called overpriced- but it is in fact only 10k (25% more) than the median new car price in the US. You certainly have to be better of than average to afford it; but "0.01% of population can afford" is a huge exaggeration. In reality probably about half the population COULD afford it if they really wanted to and made sacrifices elsewhere- and 25% of total population in US COULD probably afford it comfortably.
Can you get a better (more luxurious anyway) car for the price? Yeah, certainly, but a significant % of people could afford it if they really wanted to.
I pity those that go there looking for adventure only to realize they are standing in a tube.
I think a lot of people hope they will be remembered as a Lewis or Clark. Maybe have a town named after them on Mars for being one of the original settlers. They see what they're doing as glorious and adventurous, burning a trail... and maybe it is. Not something I'd want to do. I'm all for us trying to colonise another planet if for no other reason than the undoubted tech it will spark... but I don't want to go. Not even the prospect of having Mcweanyville be named the capital city of Mars would encourage me.
The person behind the idea that caused the article to be written, is pretty seriously misunderstanding reality at it's present state, for sure. However, I feel like the reason that it's posted here on slashdot is because it exposes what sort of ideas are being kicked around by those that can make shit happen. It allows some of us to read between the lines.
Oh, I feel it is absolutely to know what kinds of things people are thinking. Even this ridiculous "give the internet friction" idea. It's important to know what stupid ideas people have, so that you know to oppose them.
People who only read "The Huffington Post and Buzzfeed" or, on the other side, people who only listen to "Fox News and Breitbart", are really not doing themselves any favours. It is important to see all sides of an issue. Even the stupid side.
Fuck you, if they think they will take my Newports they better prepare for a fight. How about the parents you know... BE PARENTS!! Wtf is with people and their need to control what others do.
This isn't a serious suggestion and I've never taken a puff so I wouldn't know (and I'm not in favour of an all-out ban)... but...... would smoking a regular cigarette with a cough drop in your mouth at the same time have anything like the same effect as a menthol cigarette?
Slashdot Mirror
Addendum:
Naturally, my point for saying such is that, energy exports would help create a prosperous economy for North Africa.
The problem is, to have successful industry, you need a stable and honest government. Something North Africa lacks.
A stable economy helps lead to a stable government. No guarentees of course; but coups and rebellions and the springing up of terrorist organisations and extremists are all usually linked to impoverished people and/or social inequality in a region.
Get a strong North African economy and you're more likely to see a stable government follow.
I don't think we'll hit 9 billion by 2024 will we? Maybe 8 billion. Regardless, I see 1.5 Billion covered as a "glass over 75% empty" scenario.
Dude, I'm a software engineer. I create the future.
(Also, it has a lot of bugs. The future is pretty damn buggy. Sorry.)
I once worked on software that was used for aircraft maintenance... that's when I was fresh out of university... with a BA. If you see any aircraft with the tail installed upside down... sorry from me too.
It always seemed to me that autonomous submarines would be super useful for military offense. A submarine that doesn't need humans inside can be smaller, faster, quieter, cheaper, and more maneuverable. They could recharge from solar or tidal power, or have nuclear batteries that last decades. But most frighteningly: what if they contained nuclear weapons? You could position them all over the world, nearly undetectable, imminently ready to strike. Port cities are vulnerable yet also valuable.
I don't know that I would trust anything autonomous with nuclear weapons. Even if the tech was foolproof for remote steering and detonation, it takes one person hacking the communication to it and the highest bidder now has nuclear weapons.
Most of their initial costs will be fluid.
If they run into trouble I'm sure they will try floating the stock.
Sounds like the plot for a James Bond movie.
Yes, but most of these are sunk costs.
They're paying for it with liquid assets.
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
Don't kid yourself. England and its colonies had slavery too. Just because they ended it fifty years earlier doesn't make them any less guilty.
It means they have 50 years less guilt.
Regardless though, any government that DIDN'T outlaw it and actively try to prevent it was very guilty. Sadly, slavery has been the norm in history not the exception. It's illegal now, but there are still a large number of slaves kept TODAY in a couple of African countries. The is also sexual slavery, which although not exactly the same thing is just as bad, and that is a world-wide problem.
The Arabic empires all had slaves for hundreds of years. Germanic and Nordic people all had slaves pre Christendom. All the classical empires had slaves. Without going back to pre-history, there probably has not been a single day in all human history where one nation or another hasn't had large numbers of slaves.
Many humans are really quite crappy people and will enslave, or take advantage of other people who are weaker than them. Human history is full of one group of people being horrifically nasty to another group. We're a horrible species in many ways when you think about it.
You still know where it's coming from so who cares. Unless you want to put the phone down and not generate business?
Some companies may want to not do business with automated services. After all, it is very easy to fake a robocall (as we all know). How long until people start attacking businesses with fake Google Assistant calls?
Say Bob doesn't like Papa Johns because their CEO said something racist. So Bob sets up a robocall to call every Papa Johns in the US with a fake Google Assistant order every day. That could cost them millions.
Say it isn't something as noble as attacking a racist corp. Say it's because the owner of a company is a Democrat, or a Republican. Or, they have some strange grievance against the business.
Companies are going to want to decide if Computer Calls count as legitimate calls or not.
In America, the bastion of freedom, you criticize speech? Even China is freer than that. Chinese think nothing of what they say, who they say it to, or where they say it. Far more free than America in so many ways.
The same China that is rating citizens on their individual behaviour including what they say and who they say it to? That free China?
Not only is there no freedom of speech- there is no freedom of listening. You get negative social points just for being friends with someone who said something or did something considered bad (which impacts where you can shop, jobs you can get, where you can stay, etc,)
So if I marry, and my kids have my name, the flight is more expensive than if,
I spawn kids on a woman, she keeps her name and the kids have random hyphenated names.
Or perhaps adopt kids, who keep their names?
So the LBWTF couple with adopted kids, gets a discount compared to the old fashioned married family.
You wonder why the West is not reproducing.
Unfortunately you're telling me this as a married hetero man. If I knew this 20 years ago I would have been gay and adopted all my children instead. It's just so hard being Hetero having to pay more for kids on airplanes. LBGT have no idea the struggles we go through and the prejudice we face.
Yep. Anytime I'm coming home into Burbank, I always go to the REAR of the plane, because many travelers are unfamiliar with this. Lots of overhead space, and pretty much my choice of seat.
I don't like being near the toilets (which are typically at the rear). You get the smells and the constant people walking past your seat.
Yeah, that's why I never let pregnant women sit in the bus. It was their choice after all.
Not necessarily. :(
Says someone who obviously doesn't understand WHY someone would say that.
Most wives (women you don't live with) are a lot more fun when you don't live with them.
will there be a happy ending?
For Humanity, no.
Facebook has a youtube competitor? First time I've heard of it. Then again, that might be part of the problem. That, and its facebook.
It's always hard to topple a dominant player that has attained critical mass.
Google Plus tried to be facebook. Failed.
Facebook tried to be YouTube. Failed.
There is just too much content already on the opposite platform, unless there is a compelling reason for people to switch, they won't.
A lot of places that embraced bitcoin quickly are already discontinuing it or not supporting it anymore.
It's never really been stable enough to be used properly as a currency. A currency that hops around in value up and down every few days isn't a very useful currency- it's an investment vehicle not a currency.
You realize that nobody can afford new cars at the median price point either right?
That this is the reason used prices are starting to shoot through the roof?
I make well over average income and have never been able to afford a new car, and the most I've ever spent is $12k. Currently trying to keep my girlfriend and I's now-dodgy mid-2000s cars running since I'm not in a position to replace either, even with a newer used car. Not even sure I'd want a car on the market right now, they're all full of computer tech that can't be good for more than 6 or 7 years.
People can't "afford" them but buy them anyone to keep up with the neighbors- all on credit, which hurts them in the end. I've never understood it. I took the sensible route myself and got a nice subcompact for half the median price. I could probably "afford" a $35k+ car/SUV, but then I wouldn't be able to afford something else. I've never felt the need to impress the neighbors by driving a big SUV. A subcompact is all I need, I don't need to impress anyone with a pretty SUV (that I don't actually get to see the outside of when I'm using it).
Fun fact: It actually doesn't cost automakers that much more to build a big car or SUV than a subcompact- but they can add much more markup and make much more profit per vehicle on a larger vehicles which is why automakers try to steer the market larger. They make very thin profits on the bottom tier vehicles (basically loss leaders) and massive profits on the top tier vehicles.
Anyone who rides around in a vehicle that only the 0.01% can afford and claims it is "green" is a complete douchebag, which fits in with Musk fanboys.
The Tesla 3 could probably be called overpriced- but it is in fact only 10k (25% more) than the median new car price in the US. You certainly have to be better of than average to afford it; but "0.01% of population can afford" is a huge exaggeration. In reality probably about half the population COULD afford it if they really wanted to and made sacrifices elsewhere- and 25% of total population in US COULD probably afford it comfortably.
Can you get a better (more luxurious anyway) car for the price? Yeah, certainly, but a significant % of people could afford it if they really wanted to.
I pity those that go there looking for adventure only to realize they are standing in a tube.
I think a lot of people hope they will be remembered as a Lewis or Clark. Maybe have a town named after them on Mars for being one of the original settlers.
They see what they're doing as glorious and adventurous, burning a trail... and maybe it is. Not something I'd want to do. I'm all for us trying to colonise another planet if for no other reason than the undoubted tech it will spark... but I don't want to go. Not even the prospect of having Mcweanyville be named the capital city of Mars would encourage me.
The person behind the idea that caused the article to be written, is pretty seriously misunderstanding reality at it's present state, for sure. However, I feel like the reason that it's posted here on slashdot is because it exposes what sort of ideas are being kicked around by those that can make shit happen. It allows some of us to read between the lines.
Oh, I feel it is absolutely to know what kinds of things people are thinking. Even this ridiculous "give the internet friction" idea. It's important to know what stupid ideas people have, so that you know to oppose them.
People who only read "The Huffington Post and Buzzfeed" or, on the other side, people who only listen to "Fox News and Breitbart", are really not doing themselves any favours. It is important to see all sides of an issue. Even the stupid side.
Because Chicago users are not amused about this.
If they're not amused they don't have to pay the tax. The tax is clearly only for those that are amused.
That Slashdot has gone so much downhill as to post stuff like this.
The idea behind this article is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read. And I've read two Ayn Rand novels.
Fuck you, if they think they will take my Newports they better prepare for a fight. How about the parents you know... BE PARENTS!! Wtf is with people and their need to control what others do.
This isn't a serious suggestion and I've never taken a puff so I wouldn't know (and I'm not in favour of an all-out ban)... but... ... would smoking a regular cigarette with a cough drop in your mouth at the same time have anything like the same effect as a menthol cigarette?