I'm curious about this research. Did they include different demographics? Because if the demographic was only American kids who are already overfed, I guess the "sugar rush" won't change their behavior much. That doesn't mean there is no "sugar rush" for kids with better eating habits.
In most countries, copyright is not 70 years, but 70 years after the death of the author. So not only the plumber will charge you for all his life, but his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will also charge you for all their lives. Now pay and suck it up.
I'm an atheist, I'd even say I'm somewhat anti-religion, but your rhetoric is just ridiculous. Yes, there were a few priests who join the church to hide their deviant sexual behavior, but the majority were good men and women. Yes, the church did some horrible things throughout history, but it also did a lot of good things.
Actually, the US population is not more spread out. Germany, France and a lot of other European countries have a greater percentage of rural population than the US.
The excuse of the US size is completely bogus. The percentage of the urban population in the US is 80.7%, while the urban population of Germany is 74% (yet Germany has three times the speed of the US). And don't get me started on price people have to pay for the bad service they get.
You obviously read far too much science-fiction stories. This is not about "robots", this is about people. If you think autonomous cars will be sentient beings making their own choices, I think you should quit smoking drugs.
There are people who believe morality is something they should define themselves instead of accepting without question whatever the wise government decides. Weird, I know.
So you want me to sign a clause saying I should be sacrificed whenever an idiot decides to jump in front of my car for fun? Sorry, but no. The idiot must die.
Where I live, the speed limit in residential area is 40 km/h (25 mph). Nobody respects this speed limit, but an autonomous car will. At this speed, it takes 85 feet for a car to stop, including 55 feet because humans take a lot of time to react. Since an autonomous car would react within a few milliseconds, it means an autonomous car will completely stop within 30 feet. So the only way a toddler could be hit is if he jumps out in front of the car exactly when the car is coming. If that's the case, probably nothing could save the child.
We can imagine the car could also turn the wheel to the left as fast as possible. In case there's no other car coming the other way, the car will most probably stop in the middle of the opposite lane and it will never put the lives of its passengers in danger. (So there's no dilemma here.)
Now the only dilemma is if there's another car coming on the opposite lane exactly at the same moment, which could possibly result in a frontal collision. But then, you'd have a car who would choose to put the lives of its passengers (including possible toddlers) and the lives of other cars' passengers (again including possible toddlers) simply to save one toddler.
Personally, I don't see much of a dilemma in this situation. The toddler must go. So the rule is simple : brake and try to maneuver if the there's no other obstacle. There's no need to even think about putting the lives of the car's passenger in danger.
You realize that very few people agree with all the decisions of their representatives, right? Representative democracies are not really democracies. They are just a system to somewhat limit abuses by allowing people to change their dictators from time to time. On the other hand, a referendum is what democracy is about. So are you against the idea of democracy?
And if the remain camp win a second referendum, do you think everyone should vote again in a third one? Is it a two out of three? Or maybe a three out of five? Will you try to change the rules again and again until you get what you want?
They are not legally binding, but not respecting a referendum as important as this one would lead to serious civil unrest which would be disastrous to the society.
Both the left and the right are now anti-intellectual (both have ideologies based on emotions). Both the left and the right are now populist (they just cater to different populations). I'm someone who was to the left, but now I'm forced to distance myself from this left because it is now even more anti-intellectual than the right. It's to a point that although I'm an atheist I now view ultra conservative Christians as more reasonable than the average "progressive".
Do you have any statistics on the number of people who were hurt or killed because of someone else not wearing his or her seatbelt? I think I remember one case in the city where I live in the 70s when a mother was killed by one of her children in the backseat who was not wearing his seatbelt (in the 70s, no one in the backseat were wearing their seatbelt), but other than that, I must admit my ignorance.
Since you raised the argument, I'm sure you have valid data to support your argument, right?
No, the key word is not "share". The key word is not even mentioned.
Yes, the wealthier will pay a lower proportion of their income as taxes, but why is it relevant? They will still pay more taxes. The question is : what is fair? Is it fair for someone to pay more taxes simply because he's more successful? And if a person pays more taxes, will he get something in return for his greater contribution to society?
The idea that people should pay taxes according to their abilities and receive services from society according to their needs is communism. To me, communism is "regressive".
It's your usage of the term Dark Ages which is wrong. I find it strange that you gave a Wikipedia link to the "Sea Peoples" to support your point about Dark Ages, and yet didn't look at wikipedia page for "Dark Ages". I'll give you the first two sentences:
Dark Ages is a term of historical periodization traditionally meaning the Middle Ages. It emphasizes the demographic, cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Western Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire.
As for the Renaissance, it was also the start of important scientific and technological progress. Haven't you heard of people like Newton, Kepler, Galileo, da Vinci, or hundreds of hundreds of others? Really?
Anyway, it seems obvious to me you are trying to defend religion to a point of absurdity. I guess you live in your own "dark ages".
No, calling it a "Dark Age" is not wrong. Compared to the Greek and Roman civilization it was clearly a regression. No idea why you try to deny reality.
You say we only have progress since 1870? Maybe you should Google "The Renaissance".
As for saying the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages are not the same, this is debatable. Traditionally, the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages meant the same period of time. It's only recently that some scholars decided to limit the Dark Ages to the 5th to 10th century.
Lastly, there is certainly a correlation between religion and regression. It's difficult to know if it's regression which causes the rise of religions or if it's the rise of religions which cause regression, but the link is undeniable. One thing is for sure, during the Renaissance, Christianity did hinder progress.
Most of the time, "robots" forced people to move to field requiring more knowledge and expertise. Mechanization was countered with education. The problem is the human ability to learn is not infinite. There are a lot of people who do not have the intelligence to have a college degree, no matter what. Those people will be in a situation where they won't find any field where they can be better than a robot.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious about this research. Did they include different demographics? Because if the demographic was only American kids who are already overfed, I guess the "sugar rush" won't change their behavior much. That doesn't mean there is no "sugar rush" for kids with better eating habits.
In most countries, copyright is not 70 years, but 70 years after the death of the author. So not only the plumber will charge you for all his life, but his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will also charge you for all their lives. Now pay and suck it up.
I'm an atheist, I'd even say I'm somewhat anti-religion, but your rhetoric is just ridiculous. Yes, there were a few priests who join the church to hide their deviant sexual behavior, but the majority were good men and women. Yes, the church did some horrible things throughout history, but it also did a lot of good things.
So please, cut the crap.
Not exactly. What should be considered is only the density of covered areas. And when we look at coverage in the US...
Actually, the US population is not more spread out. Germany, France and a lot of other European countries have a greater percentage of rural population than the US.
Ah, democracy. This thing we all cherish, except when a vote doesn't go our way.
The excuse of the US size is completely bogus. The percentage of the urban population in the US is 80.7%, while the urban population of Germany is 74% (yet Germany has three times the speed of the US). And don't get me started on price people have to pay for the bad service they get.
You obviously read far too much science-fiction stories. This is not about "robots", this is about people. If you think autonomous cars will be sentient beings making their own choices, I think you should quit smoking drugs.
There are people who believe morality is something they should define themselves instead of accepting without question whatever the wise government decides. Weird, I know.
So you want me to sign a clause saying I should be sacrificed whenever an idiot decides to jump in front of my car for fun? Sorry, but no. The idiot must die.
Where I live, the speed limit in residential area is 40 km/h (25 mph). Nobody respects this speed limit, but an autonomous car will. At this speed, it takes 85 feet for a car to stop, including 55 feet because humans take a lot of time to react. Since an autonomous car would react within a few milliseconds, it means an autonomous car will completely stop within 30 feet. So the only way a toddler could be hit is if he jumps out in front of the car exactly when the car is coming. If that's the case, probably nothing could save the child.
We can imagine the car could also turn the wheel to the left as fast as possible. In case there's no other car coming the other way, the car will most probably stop in the middle of the opposite lane and it will never put the lives of its passengers in danger. (So there's no dilemma here.)
Now the only dilemma is if there's another car coming on the opposite lane exactly at the same moment, which could possibly result in a frontal collision. But then, you'd have a car who would choose to put the lives of its passengers (including possible toddlers) and the lives of other cars' passengers (again including possible toddlers) simply to save one toddler.
Personally, I don't see much of a dilemma in this situation. The toddler must go. So the rule is simple : brake and try to maneuver if the there's no other obstacle. There's no need to even think about putting the lives of the car's passenger in danger.
Slowly lift off on the brake pedal and check for any unintended movement.
Slowly? LOL! I agree with everything else, but that one is just ridiculous.
You realize that very few people agree with all the decisions of their representatives, right? Representative democracies are not really democracies. They are just a system to somewhat limit abuses by allowing people to change their dictators from time to time. On the other hand, a referendum is what democracy is about. So are you against the idea of democracy?
And if the remain camp win a second referendum, do you think everyone should vote again in a third one? Is it a two out of three? Or maybe a three out of five? Will you try to change the rules again and again until you get what you want?
They are not legally binding, but not respecting a referendum as important as this one would lead to serious civil unrest which would be disastrous to the society.
Both the left and the right are now anti-intellectual (both have ideologies based on emotions). Both the left and the right are now populist (they just cater to different populations). I'm someone who was to the left, but now I'm forced to distance myself from this left because it is now even more anti-intellectual than the right. It's to a point that although I'm an atheist I now view ultra conservative Christians as more reasonable than the average "progressive".
Do you have any statistics on the number of people who were hurt or killed because of someone else not wearing his or her seatbelt? I think I remember one case in the city where I live in the 70s when a mother was killed by one of her children in the backseat who was not wearing his seatbelt (in the 70s, no one in the backseat were wearing their seatbelt), but other than that, I must admit my ignorance.
Since you raised the argument, I'm sure you have valid data to support your argument, right?
ideally, an IQ test should not correlate with education.
No, the key word is not "share". The key word is not even mentioned.
Yes, the wealthier will pay a lower proportion of their income as taxes, but why is it relevant? They will still pay more taxes. The question is : what is fair? Is it fair for someone to pay more taxes simply because he's more successful? And if a person pays more taxes, will he get something in return for his greater contribution to society?
The idea that people should pay taxes according to their abilities and receive services from society according to their needs is communism. To me, communism is "regressive".
if you spend your whole pay check, as a poor person, then you are paying a greater share of the tax.
I'm pretty sure a poor person will consume less than someone rich and therefore pay a lesser share of the tax.
So how do we vote out the second one? By voting in the first one again? And we keep alternating like that ad vitam aeternam?
We can't vote someone out. Sure, we have the "choice" to vote his twin in, but what would be the point?
It's your usage of the term Dark Ages which is wrong. I find it strange that you gave a Wikipedia link to the "Sea Peoples" to support your point about Dark Ages, and yet didn't look at wikipedia page for "Dark Ages". I'll give you the first two sentences:
As for the Renaissance, it was also the start of important scientific and technological progress. Haven't you heard of people like Newton, Kepler, Galileo, da Vinci, or hundreds of hundreds of others? Really?
Anyway, it seems obvious to me you are trying to defend religion to a point of absurdity. I guess you live in your own "dark ages".
No, calling it a "Dark Age" is not wrong. Compared to the Greek and Roman civilization it was clearly a regression. No idea why you try to deny reality.
You say we only have progress since 1870? Maybe you should Google "The Renaissance".
As for saying the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages are not the same, this is debatable. Traditionally, the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages meant the same period of time. It's only recently that some scholars decided to limit the Dark Ages to the 5th to 10th century.
Lastly, there is certainly a correlation between religion and regression. It's difficult to know if it's regression which causes the rise of religions or if it's the rise of religions which cause regression, but the link is undeniable. One thing is for sure, during the Renaissance, Christianity did hinder progress.
Most of the time, "robots" forced people to move to field requiring more knowledge and expertise. Mechanization was countered with education. The problem is the human ability to learn is not infinite. There are a lot of people who do not have the intelligence to have a college degree, no matter what. Those people will be in a situation where they won't find any field where they can be better than a robot.