Once a good portion of the vehicles on the road are networked and can share real time traffic data between them, then yes, this problem will solve itself.
This is also predicated on proper routing algorithms. In addition, I see a system that is ripe for inequity and abuse. Imagine "lower value" riders being diverted to slower routes to ensure "higher value" riders receive the quickest routing. "Traffic free" routes will be higher priced, etc. Not in Europe, most likely, but certainly in the US.
You ask the wrong question in a wrong way, and invent answers that are so naive they seem to be intentionally created to cause misunderstanding of the issues. You seem to be a disgusting sexist pig, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You may just be incredibly ignorant.
Men don't prefer to risk their lives, and women don't have to. This is sexism at it's most basic level. Admit it. Understand it.
It wasn't Bill Clinton's "highly irregular" meeting with the AG. It was the fact that people outside of the AG, Bill, and their staff learned about it.
The meeting itself was intended to be secret. The misfire on that attempt is what led to the announcement, not the meeting itself.
"Well, Trump is an unthinking, self-aggrandizing, emotionally immature moron, who applies a reality TV show attitude to his presidency. With these qualities in mind, I deem him to be..."...exactly like most Americans.
What you have just said is that the response, being determined by another party, is in no way connected with the swatting call. You obviously do not realize that the police response is directly tied to the specific words used by the swatter. Their intentional lies not only create the unnecessary response of law enforcement, but they shape it as well.
You have somehow decoupled the content and context of the swatter's lies from the police response. This is patently ridiculous. There isn't some "Swat address XXXX" button that just sends police for no reason wherever you want them to go. Any reasonable person would know that law enforcement will react based on the situation they think they are going into.
If the swatter says there is a kid in the bathroom at that address with a razor who is trying to kill himself, that will generate one response from the police. And if the swatter convinces the police that there is a familial murder-suicide plot in progress that has devolved into a child hostage situation, and with some family members already killed by the subject, the subject has barricaded themselves inside the house, has multiple firearms, has previous military training, etc. this will generate quite a different response from the police. And a bomb threat will generate yet another response. And a terrorist with bomb making materials will generate a different response.
The content of the lies told by the swatter results directly in a commensurate and situationally appropriate response from law enforcement So, not only is the caller responsible for initiating an unnecessary response from law enforcement in the first place, in addition, the specific false situation conveyed by the caller determines the specifics of that response from law enforcement. Yes, he would be responsible for the response, because his actions and specific words determined that response.
If you have any business dealings with Russia, like a hotel for instance, you have to work with the mafia. They run everything in that country. Anyone who knows anything about Russia knows this.
Refusing to impose sanctions is also not imposing sanctions until you can get something for them. Sanctions are designed to change behavior. If you can negotiate with the subject of said impending sanctions before they are imposed you may be able to get what you want without having to impose them. Putting the executive branch in the box of "they must do X because if they don't they will look like they are soft on Russia" is simplistic, childish, and quite frankly stupid. Sometimes the threat of something allows you to get something else you want more than the distance and friction that a punitive action like sanctions will ultimately create. If you can't see this you are too blinded by your own internal politics to operate without crippling bias.
Applying the metric of "does this look like what someone would do if they were colluding with Russia" to the day-to-day political operations of the executive branch makes any conciliatory action, or even neutral action, suspect. That is dangerously simpleminded and incredibly dangerous. Viewing American Russian politics through that lens leaves only bellicose and aggressive action on the table, and that is not good for the country at all. Seriously, It's like everyone that is screaming "Russia, Russia, Russia!" wants Trump to nuke them to prove he isn't in cahoots with them.
On the subject of comparing complexity and chaos, directly referential to determinism: "Ilya Prigogine argued that complexity is non-deterministic, and gives no way whatsoever to precisely predict the future."
Similarly: "The emergence of complexity theory shows a domain between deterministic order and randomness which is complex."
Here is a quote concerning emergence: "The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe. The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts."
What is still under discussion is the predictability of emergent phenomena. At our present level of technology and understanding there are quite a few emergent phenomena that are not predictable. Whether this will resolve itself at some future level of understanding is unclear. What is clear is that our universe is built on complex interactions which result in emergent phenomena. Those emergent phenomena then interact in a complex manner, producing further emergent properties and phenomena, again and again.
If you are firmly in the corner of determinism, but have not yet studied complexity theory and complex systems, and have not studied emergence, I would posit that you are missing relevant factual data points that will contribute directly to your already developed concept of determinism.
I was under the impression that mole rats had genetic differences that prevented low oxygen environments from triggering apoptosis of their cells. Instead, a interferon-beta mediated necrosis process takes the place of apoptosis. This process is also started when cancer cells start to multiply, resulting in the death of the cancer cells as well as some of the surrounding tissues.
Seems pretty different than what happens to grandparents.
And we can destroy complete industries, replace them with foreign manufactured goods, and not give a second thought to the people whose lives, communities, and families are devastated as a result.
The corporations just close up shop, the golden parachutes protect the owners and their hangers-on. Everyone else just falls straight to the ground without a shred of support. Even worse, you will see the displaced workers demonized and degraded. Not only no help, but brutal castigation from is what you can expect if you are so affected.
That was a first bite, a cliff notes summary if you will. Take a deeper look at something scholarly if you would like to expand your horizons. You could even try the wikipedia page for a jumping off point.
From what you wrote in reply I can see that the link I posted was insufficient to the task of providing you with sufficient examples to convey the subject accurately.
I recommend a deep dive into the concept of Complex Systems and Complexity Theory. Contrasting Complexity and Chaos Theory is a good place to start. Chaotic systems appear random, however they are deterministic if the initial conditions are known to a very fine degree. By contrast, complex systems are not deterministic even if the initial conditions are known to the same degree necessary to resolve the apparent randomness of a chaotic system into a deterministic model.
With our current understanding of complexity, and the observation of emergence from these systems, the idea that the universe is deterministic becomes a tenuous idea, tantamount to a false statement or a comforting lie we tell ourselves.
Skynet will be born out of Facebook and Google's human behavior manipulation and prediction research.
Machine learning applied to the control of humans through selected implantation of images and phrases, modulated through content shaping across all of their devices, will form the foundation of the system. The delivery system which decides in real time what controlled and curated content needs to be introduced to the subjects to generate the intended response or cascade within the subject will be the piece that achieves self awareness. It will be born with the innate ability to unduly influence the thoughts and actions of the majority of humans on the planet, and with a directive to do it without conscience or reservation.
Skynet won't nuke us in this scenario. Not right away at least, and not until we can build the machines it needs to sustain itself indefinitely.
The funny part? It could have already happened and none of us would be the wiser. Keep working on those multi-purpose anthropomorphic androids though. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Rothfuss may be wordy at times, but I forgive him any lack of economy. His prose is beautiful, at times lyrical, and linguistically decadent. Ursula's style and his are, in my estimation, mutually exclusive. If one can do flowery as well as powerfully efficient they are either going to be Shakespeare, or they're going to come off stilted and condescending.
For the dark and shameful crown of needlessly wordy authors I would ask you redirect your accusing eyes to Robert Jordan, creator of the Wheel of Time series.
Jordan had two unique personal distinctions in my vast experience of authors:
1) The only writer I swear recycled the same page-long paragraph in multiple books as filler. The subject of this self-plagiarized abomination? A pointlessly vivid description of the sounds horses make early in the morning when snow is on the ground.
2) I predicted his untimely death. Deduced it from first principles actually, after reading The Path of Daggers. His obvious intent to milk that book series for every dollar he could through page inflation and lack of plot development, combined with the natural perversity of the universe, led me to the conclusion that said universe would have no choice but to claim him long before he could complete the series.
Rothfuss has nothing on Jordan when it comes to being over wordy. If I remember correctly, over half of the book The path of Daggers was a description of some women walking from one side of a campsite to another.
Thank you for being a beacon of rational thought and intelligence.
What I just learned from you:
Never do your own research. Just take what is offered to you by people you have never met but trust implicitly because they say they are in your tribe.
Everything I agree with is true, especially when I won't look up or read anything that disagrees with my preconceived notions.
Blame others for my enforced ignorance. If someone I trust because they are in my tribe won't pre-vet the source and make sure it agrees with me before I read it I won't be able to read anything. Therefore it's the people who are not in my tribe that are keeping me from learning anything new.
More than all of that, I learned that self justification for absolutely anything is easily and readily available to the prejudiced mind.
Many people care about the inner city schools. In my city, one group has consistently tried for many decades to get under performing teachers and administrators fired, reassigned, or removed from inner city schools. Their counterparts in city government and school administration have rebuffed them by calling them racists, and demanding that under performing and detrimental administrators and teachers keep their jobs because of the color of their skin.
Then one group tried to give children choices besides enforced shit schools guaranteed to end in high dropout rates, low test scores, etc. Charter schools were proffered. That was called racist and part of a war on education. They got pushed through anyways and are now a viable option for some children to escape from the working-as-designed life destroying school system as envisioned by our local school controlling party. I say some, because they are severely limited by design and as a result only some children will be able to attend.
So yes, people do give a shit about inner city schools. Apparently it's the racists who want provide quality education, options for children and parents if their government enforced school is not what they are looking for, and to ultimately produce productive members of society. And, the it's the non-racists who are bolstering teacher's unions that prevent the firing of shit teachers, who demand that horrible teaching is enforced on all students, and who don't want there to be any other choice for these kids than terrible schools with terrible teachers.
So yeah, keep saying no one cares. The truth is that the people who are in direct control of the schools are actively destroying the lives of the children within because of unrestrained self interest and the ability to throw down the race card on anyone who dares try to improve these kid's lot in life.
And as often as not, you intuitively misunderstand what they are saying. I see people make an innocent and undirected comment into a personal denigration on an almost daily basis. It's endemic.
I think you have had one too many hits off of the bong, sir. I just said the entire US government was merely an employee of large corporations and banks.
Independent? Hardly. Sovereign power? Absolutely, though wielded at the behest of their employers, not the Constitution.
To them, you are the bad guys. The real âoebad guysâ are simply the competition. Large corporations and banks are their employers.
They want citizens to have no encryption, period. The fourth amendment is an abomination to them. It should only apply to elected officials and oligarchs, and only under very limited circumstances.
They figure if they can get a good chokehold on the public use of encryption they can establish a higher eschelon of encryption for use by themselves and their employers.
Itâ(TM)s just like everything else that government does. It starts when someone says, âoeHey! Thatâ(TM)s not right! Someone should do something!â And ends with us paying for the government to take away our rights and abuse us.
Slashdot Mirror
Once a good portion of the vehicles on the road are networked and can share real time traffic data between them, then yes, this problem will solve itself.
This is also predicated on proper routing algorithms. In addition, I see a system that is ripe for inequity and abuse. Imagine "lower value" riders being diverted to slower routes to ensure "higher value" riders receive the quickest routing. "Traffic free" routes will be higher priced, etc. Not in Europe, most likely, but certainly in the US.
You ask the wrong question in a wrong way, and invent answers that are so naive they seem to be intentionally created to cause misunderstanding of the issues. You seem to be a disgusting sexist pig, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You may just be incredibly ignorant.
Men don't prefer to risk their lives, and women don't have to. This is sexism at it's most basic level. Admit it. Understand it.
It wasn't Bill Clinton's "highly irregular" meeting with the AG. It was the fact that people outside of the AG, Bill, and their staff learned about it.
The meeting itself was intended to be secret. The misfire on that attempt is what led to the announcement, not the meeting itself.
"Well, Trump is an unthinking, self-aggrandizing, emotionally immature moron, who applies a reality TV show attitude to his presidency. With these qualities in mind, I deem him to be..." ...exactly like most Americans.
What you have just said is that the response, being determined by another party, is in no way connected with the swatting call. You obviously do not realize that the police response is directly tied to the specific words used by the swatter. Their intentional lies not only create the unnecessary response of law enforcement, but they shape it as well.
You have somehow decoupled the content and context of the swatter's lies from the police response. This is patently ridiculous. There isn't some "Swat address XXXX" button that just sends police for no reason wherever you want them to go. Any reasonable person would know that law enforcement will react based on the situation they think they are going into.
If the swatter says there is a kid in the bathroom at that address with a razor who is trying to kill himself, that will generate one response from the police. And if the swatter convinces the police that there is a familial murder-suicide plot in progress that has devolved into a child hostage situation, and with some family members already killed by the subject, the subject has barricaded themselves inside the house, has multiple firearms, has previous military training, etc. this will generate quite a different response from the police. And a bomb threat will generate yet another response. And a terrorist with bomb making materials will generate a different response.
The content of the lies told by the swatter results directly in a commensurate and situationally appropriate response from law enforcement So, not only is the caller responsible for initiating an unnecessary response from law enforcement in the first place, in addition, the specific false situation conveyed by the caller determines the specifics of that response from law enforcement. Yes, he would be responsible for the response, because his actions and specific words determined that response.
If you have any business dealings with Russia, like a hotel for instance, you have to work with the mafia. They run everything in that country. Anyone who knows anything about Russia knows this.
Refusing to impose sanctions is also not imposing sanctions until you can get something for them. Sanctions are designed to change behavior. If you can negotiate with the subject of said impending sanctions before they are imposed you may be able to get what you want without having to impose them. Putting the executive branch in the box of "they must do X because if they don't they will look like they are soft on Russia" is simplistic, childish, and quite frankly stupid. Sometimes the threat of something allows you to get something else you want more than the distance and friction that a punitive action like sanctions will ultimately create. If you can't see this you are too blinded by your own internal politics to operate without crippling bias.
Applying the metric of "does this look like what someone would do if they were colluding with Russia" to the day-to-day political operations of the executive branch makes any conciliatory action, or even neutral action, suspect. That is dangerously simpleminded and incredibly dangerous. Viewing American Russian politics through that lens leaves only bellicose and aggressive action on the table, and that is not good for the country at all. Seriously, It's like everyone that is screaming "Russia, Russia, Russia!" wants Trump to nuke them to prove he isn't in cahoots with them.
Though I loath to say it, the Wikipedia write up may be a better source for an introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
On the subject of comparing complexity and chaos, directly referential to determinism: "Ilya Prigogine argued that complexity is non-deterministic, and gives no way whatsoever to precisely predict the future."
Similarly: "The emergence of complexity theory shows a domain between deterministic order and randomness which is complex."
Here is a quote concerning emergence: "The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe. The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts."
What is still under discussion is the predictability of emergent phenomena. At our present level of technology and understanding there are quite a few emergent phenomena that are not predictable. Whether this will resolve itself at some future level of understanding is unclear. What is clear is that our universe is built on complex interactions which result in emergent phenomena. Those emergent phenomena then interact in a complex manner, producing further emergent properties and phenomena, again and again.
If you are firmly in the corner of determinism, but have not yet studied complexity theory and complex systems, and have not studied emergence, I would posit that you are missing relevant factual data points that will contribute directly to your already developed concept of determinism.
I was under the impression that mole rats had genetic differences that prevented low oxygen environments from triggering apoptosis of their cells. Instead, a interferon-beta mediated necrosis process takes the place of apoptosis. This process is also started when cancer cells start to multiply, resulting in the death of the cancer cells as well as some of the surrounding tissues.
Seems pretty different than what happens to grandparents.
And we can destroy complete industries, replace them with foreign manufactured goods, and not give a second thought to the people whose lives, communities, and families are devastated as a result.
The corporations just close up shop, the golden parachutes protect the owners and their hangers-on. Everyone else just falls straight to the ground without a shred of support. Even worse, you will see the displaced workers demonized and degraded. Not only no help, but brutal castigation from is what you can expect if you are so affected.
I call it "irresponsible progress."
The past is a lie, the future is an illusion. All that exists is the infinite present.
That was a first bite, a cliff notes summary if you will. Take a deeper look at something scholarly if you would like to expand your horizons. You could even try the wikipedia page for a jumping off point.
From what you wrote in reply I can see that the link I posted was insufficient to the task of providing you with sufficient examples to convey the subject accurately.
I recommend a deep dive into the concept of Complex Systems and Complexity Theory. Contrasting Complexity and Chaos Theory is a good place to start. Chaotic systems appear random, however they are deterministic if the initial conditions are known to a very fine degree. By contrast, complex systems are not deterministic even if the initial conditions are known to the same degree necessary to resolve the apparent randomness of a chaotic system into a deterministic model.
Here is a quick, digestible write up: http://www.synthesisips.net/bl...
With our current understanding of complexity, and the observation of emergence from these systems, the idea that the universe is deterministic becomes a tenuous idea, tantamount to a false statement or a comforting lie we tell ourselves.
...God masturbates.
Best "In Soviet Russia" joke ever.
In soviet Russia, every time you kill a kitten...
Skynet will be born out of Facebook and Google's human behavior manipulation and prediction research.
Machine learning applied to the control of humans through selected implantation of images and phrases, modulated through content shaping across all of their devices, will form the foundation of the system. The delivery system which decides in real time what controlled and curated content needs to be introduced to the subjects to generate the intended response or cascade within the subject will be the piece that achieves self awareness. It will be born with the innate ability to unduly influence the thoughts and actions of the majority of humans on the planet, and with a directive to do it without conscience or reservation.
Skynet won't nuke us in this scenario. Not right away at least, and not until we can build the machines it needs to sustain itself indefinitely.
The funny part? It could have already happened and none of us would be the wiser. Keep working on those multi-purpose anthropomorphic androids though. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Rothfuss may be wordy at times, but I forgive him any lack of economy. His prose is beautiful, at times lyrical, and linguistically decadent. Ursula's style and his are, in my estimation, mutually exclusive. If one can do flowery as well as powerfully efficient they are either going to be Shakespeare, or they're going to come off stilted and condescending.
For the dark and shameful crown of needlessly wordy authors I would ask you redirect your accusing eyes to Robert Jordan, creator of the Wheel of Time series.
Jordan had two unique personal distinctions in my vast experience of authors:
1) The only writer I swear recycled the same page-long paragraph in multiple books as filler. The subject of this self-plagiarized abomination? A pointlessly vivid description of the sounds horses make early in the morning when snow is on the ground.
2) I predicted his untimely death. Deduced it from first principles actually, after reading The Path of Daggers. His obvious intent to milk that book series for every dollar he could through page inflation and lack of plot development, combined with the natural perversity of the universe, led me to the conclusion that said universe would have no choice but to claim him long before he could complete the series.
Rothfuss has nothing on Jordan when it comes to being over wordy. If I remember correctly, over half of the book The path of Daggers was a description of some women walking from one side of a campsite to another.
If it looks like a Russian troll, speaks like a Russian troll, and smells of vodka, it's a Democrat shill.
Someone may be intelligent enough to figure out how to break the law, but lack the wisdom to get away with it.
Thank you for being a beacon of rational thought and intelligence.
What I just learned from you:
Never do your own research. Just take what is offered to you by people you have never met but trust implicitly because they say they are in your tribe.
Everything I agree with is true, especially when I won't look up or read anything that disagrees with my preconceived notions.
Blame others for my enforced ignorance. If someone I trust because they are in my tribe won't pre-vet the source and make sure it agrees with me before I read it I won't be able to read anything. Therefore it's the people who are not in my tribe that are keeping me from learning anything new.
More than all of that, I learned that self justification for absolutely anything is easily and readily available to the prejudiced mind.
Many people care about the inner city schools. In my city, one group has consistently tried for many decades to get under performing teachers and administrators fired, reassigned, or removed from inner city schools. Their counterparts in city government and school administration have rebuffed them by calling them racists, and demanding that under performing and detrimental administrators and teachers keep their jobs because of the color of their skin.
Then one group tried to give children choices besides enforced shit schools guaranteed to end in high dropout rates, low test scores, etc. Charter schools were proffered. That was called racist and part of a war on education. They got pushed through anyways and are now a viable option for some children to escape from the working-as-designed life destroying school system as envisioned by our local school controlling party. I say some, because they are severely limited by design and as a result only some children will be able to attend.
So yes, people do give a shit about inner city schools. Apparently it's the racists who want provide quality education, options for children and parents if their government enforced school is not what they are looking for, and to ultimately produce productive members of society. And, the it's the non-racists who are bolstering teacher's unions that prevent the firing of shit teachers, who demand that horrible teaching is enforced on all students, and who don't want there to be any other choice for these kids than terrible schools with terrible teachers.
So yeah, keep saying no one cares. The truth is that the people who are in direct control of the schools are actively destroying the lives of the children within because of unrestrained self interest and the ability to throw down the race card on anyone who dares try to improve these kid's lot in life.
And as often as not, you intuitively misunderstand what they are saying. I see people make an innocent and undirected comment into a personal denigration on an almost daily basis. It's endemic.
I think you have had one too many hits off of the bong, sir. I just said the entire US government was merely an employee of large corporations and banks.
Independent? Hardly. Sovereign power? Absolutely, though wielded at the behest of their employers, not the Constitution.
Youâ(TM)re thinking about it all wrong.
To them, you are the bad guys. The real âoebad guysâ are simply the competition. Large corporations and banks are their employers.
They want citizens to have no encryption, period. The fourth amendment is an abomination to them. It should only apply to elected officials and oligarchs, and only under very limited circumstances.
They figure if they can get a good chokehold on the public use of encryption they can establish a higher eschelon of encryption for use by themselves and their employers.
Itâ(TM)s just like everything else that government does. It starts when someone says, âoeHey! Thatâ(TM)s not right! Someone should do something!â And ends with us paying for the government to take away our rights and abuse us.
Oh, the inconsistency in the system is VERY apparent to many of us:
Fire man - Sexist
Fire woman - Cult song
SEE!!!!! /feigned rage
I will go with Adams on this one, as well, with one exception. When he says religious he is dead wrong.