But a large amount of that inequality is because of the preference of certain races to big families. As long as people are equal in front ofthe law regardless of color, I don't see a problem with it. Anybody from any race gets a fair chance in the market. I understand though that after a point economic based population control will become unfair towards the poor. One solution to this is to act early, so that tight population control never becomes necessary. Failing this, a fairer approach would be to limit the children a family can have to a constant two. It's not a perfect system, for example if thoroughly enforced then it would make the population decline rather than stay level, but its simplicity leaves room for some balancing without it getting too complicated and thus corruptable.
Sterilization can be a tool of eugenics, but not necessarily. Notice how I didn't mention any examples of sterilization based on physical attributes. Sterilization can be used for population control without preference for any group.
What's so wrong with sterilization? I would've no problems with sterilizing couples that already have more children that they can support, or people who have proven themselves unsuitable for having one. For example, when the parents are so bad that they have to take their kids into care, they should also sterilize them to prevent a similar problem in the future.
Also, humanity is evolving. Hundred years ago the job those car manufacturers are doing would be considered high-tech skilled labour. Maybe hundred years from now the mechanics of today will be the code monkeys, and anybody who manages to get further will be in research. With more productivity people will spend more on entertainment, which will be a huge job market in the future.
I think technological advancement alone is beneficial for most of the time. The problems usually arise when the development of technology becomes faster than the development of society. We are pushing our boundaries further and further, but have little idea how to live without them. Humanity is like an autistic kid who is smart enough to open his dad's gun locker, but lacks the wisdom not to play with its contents. In short, it's not advancement itself that's the problem, but that our understanding doesn't keep up with the speed of our research.
I admit that it will make the job of the common thief hard, that's why I said that it's a good idea. Just don't trust unencrypted sensitive data on your phone.
But because of that the privacy concerns raised are pointless. Casual use is exactly where biometrics are useful, they are very convenient but don't provide any real security.
Most people do open source for pragmatic reasons, not because of politics. You could just as well say that because of its each giving according to their abilities and receiving according to their needs approach open source is communist.
Under the proposals new cars would be fitted with cameras that could read road speed limit signs and automatically apply the brakes when this is exceeded.
Even the notoriosly inefficient Soviet government managed to contain the Chernobyl accident much quicker than Tepco has. The government has access to powers that come handy in an emergency such as this.
Slashdot Mirror
Came here hoping someone had posted this. Left satisfied.
But a large amount of that inequality is because of the preference of certain races to big families. As long as people are equal in front ofthe law regardless of color, I don't see a problem with it. Anybody from any race gets a fair chance in the market. I understand though that after a point economic based population control will become unfair towards the poor. One solution to this is to act early, so that tight population control never becomes necessary. Failing this, a fairer approach would be to limit the children a family can have to a constant two. It's not a perfect system, for example if thoroughly enforced then it would make the population decline rather than stay level, but its simplicity leaves room for some balancing without it getting too complicated and thus corruptable.
I would really like this feature for normal Java applications that use the JVM to get around the firewall.
Sterilization can be a tool of eugenics, but not necessarily. Notice how I didn't mention any examples of sterilization based on physical attributes. Sterilization can be used for population control without preference for any group.
What's so wrong with sterilization? I would've no problems with sterilizing couples that already have more children that they can support, or people who have proven themselves unsuitable for having one. For example, when the parents are so bad that they have to take their kids into care, they should also sterilize them to prevent a similar problem in the future.
Also, humanity is evolving. Hundred years ago the job those car manufacturers are doing would be considered high-tech skilled labour. Maybe hundred years from now the mechanics of today will be the code monkeys, and anybody who manages to get further will be in research. With more productivity people will spend more on entertainment, which will be a huge job market in the future.
I think technological advancement alone is beneficial for most of the time. The problems usually arise when the development of technology becomes faster than the development of society. We are pushing our boundaries further and further, but have little idea how to live without them. Humanity is like an autistic kid who is smart enough to open his dad's gun locker, but lacks the wisdom not to play with its contents.
In short, it's not advancement itself that's the problem, but that our understanding doesn't keep up with the speed of our research.
I did just that. I deduced its contents from the summary without actually viewing it.
It's easy to be cheaper than the established players when you're not paying taxes.
The video is a loud obnoxious ad.
It is quite ambigous, Slashdot should stop capitalizing every word.
I admit that it will make the job of the common thief hard, that's why I said that it's a good idea. Just don't trust unencrypted sensitive data on your phone.
But because of that the privacy concerns raised are pointless. Casual use is exactly where biometrics are useful, they are very convenient but don't provide any real security.
Most people do open source for pragmatic reasons, not because of politics. You could just as well say that because of its each giving according to their abilities and receiving according to their needs approach open source is communist.
I guess they are extreme programming fans.
All a Terminator has to do now is wave its hand and tell the dogs to sit.
Yeah, he's putting videos of the material for students up on Youtube - just like Socrates did.
Insider Steals Data of 2 Million Vodafone Germany Customers
Walking out with that many people without getting noticed would've been quite a feat.
Well, how's a man supposed to go fishing without 'em?
Thousands of exoplanet candidates. Most amateur telescopes are way too weak to provide conclusive evidence.
Here's a video, if anybody's wondering.
No, it pays to be the best.
Because they think this only happens to criminals or money launderers. At least that's how Paypal communicates the thefts.
With the quality of software in modern cars, I wouldn't want to trust my life on a vehicle that can override my actions.
From TFA:
And that's their loss. As long as I have a method of secure communication, what do I care when idiots get haxed?
Even the notoriosly inefficient Soviet government managed to contain the Chernobyl accident much quicker than Tepco has. The government has access to powers that come handy in an emergency such as this.