>Google should be able to have a panel with whoever the hell they like and ignore the haters.
What would be the point?
Google seems to have had no particular interest in ethics for a long time. To all appearances, the point of the ethics board was to shut up the haters and salve the developers' consciences enough to keep them hard at work. If it fails at that, then it's a waste of time and money.
I'm not an atheist, but that was rather my point. What exactly are we to think about people that seem to think that number should be far higher? How many would-be monsters in the world rein themselves in only because of their fear or love of God?
Or are they simply so well indoctrinated that they never bother to actually ask themselves the question, and simply assume that they would be monsters without their chains?
You're assuming we're able to flip the Senate in 2020, which would need a far more decisive turnaround than we managed in 2018.
Also, that voting would go along party lines, which seems questionable for the Democratic party, given the resistance it's putting up against the progressives.
It's a sad day when many of our ballsiest Representatives are those that don't actually have any. Maybe it's because without them, the corporations can't get a firm grip?
Mueller explicitly did NOT exonerate Trump. There's a world of difference between "he didn't do it" and "there's not enough evidence to justify trying to impeach a sitting president, when the Senate that would have to convict him obviously has no desire to do so".
Not to mention, we have NO idea what's actually in the report itself, since Barr refuses to allow it to be released, while misrepresenting its contents in a laughably short summary.
What?... Okay, yeah, I guess that makes sense doesn't it? At a given pressure the total outward force on an "equator strip" of a tank would increase linearly with circumference (or radius), which means the tensile strength of the strip needs to do so as well, and thus needs to be proportionally thicker. Hmm. Way to rain on my parade.
Of course, you are assuming the tank is pressurized - the thickness of a tank for liquid propellant with a very low vapor pressure is would be dominated by the need to survive acceleration stresses... which I suppose would create pressure, at least on the back side of the tank, wouldn't it?
Still, there's always the old standby of solid propellants, if one could be found with a high enough ISP.
Of course, that all assumes you're carrying your launching propellant with you, which would be the least-efficient way to do it.
True, but every time I hear someone ask an atheist what keeps them from raping and killing as much as they want if they don't believe in god, I'm glad religion exists to reign in such apparent murderous psychopaths.
>In the Western world, phosphate usage has declined owing to ecological problems with the damage to lakes and rivers through eutrophication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Safe for us, directly. Not so much for any animals that live in the water. And anything that threatens the health of our ecosystem, threatens our survival as a species.
Yeah, but tank mass increases far more slowly than fuel mass thanks to the square-cube law, which helps at least.
That's a fair point about telescope arrays, but a gravitational lens telescope doesn't suffer from that problem, with a single lens... thousands? millions? of times larger than Earth's disc, even after blocking out the sun at the center. Plus, I don't think you don't need imaging for a radio antenna, which means you can put your transceiver at the focal point rather than the imaging plane, and increase that 100,000x gain far further.
Yeah, but that name was already mis-taken for legacy speed maintenance systems. Cruise control? Bull. It's speed control at best, cruising also involves staying on the road and not hitting anything.
Just use a billion times as much fuel - the rocket equation puts no limit on delta-v or payload (which is essentially what braking fuel is), it only states that the amount of fuel needed increases exponentially with the desired delta-V.
Better still, use a propellant with a better isp. Double the isp for the same mass of propellant, and you'll have half your propellant left over after reaching the target speed.
Neither is terribly relevant to the near term, but we're discussing interstellar travel from the perspective of a species that's still basically confined to its home planet. Let's revisit the conversation once we have several thriving offworld colonies, interplanetary trade is routine, and antimatter is a conveniently dense way to store power. Not a whole lot of point in looking to travel beyond our own system before then anyway.
As for telemetry - I'm fairly certain we're not using our most powerful radio-telescope arrays to receive the data from those outer system missions. Plus, our biggest telescope array is still only measured in miles - once we go orbital in a big way we can increase that a million-fold without hardly trying. Not to mention the potential a solar gravitational lens telescope, which would be a lot faster and easier to build and launch than a serious interstellar mission, and give you a much better idea of what to prepare for. From 2000AU out, the image of an Earth-sized planet 35 light years away would be 12.5km across on the focal plane, and increase the intensity of light (and radio) by a factor of 100,000. Makes for a great signal booster as well as a visual scouting tool.
How do you figure? I'm not sure 1/3rd is the proper ratio, but accelerating is going to take a lot more fuel (reaction mass really) than decelerating, since you don't have to decelerate all the fuel you've already used up. And the fuel is likely to be the vast majority of the mass of the entire mission.
If that's all you want out of a class, watch the video lectures and test out. Don't blame other people for your inability to watch movies on your own time.
>So, how can we appoint people and screen out serious conflicts in a timely manner?
More importantly, why would we want to? Those serious conflicts of interest are what's necessary to avoid having your symbolic gesture become an embarrassment. Without them your ethics board might start suggesting courses of action that would interfere with profits, and then you'd be in the position of having to either lose money or obviously ignore your own ethics board.
Much better for everyone (making the decisions) if the board is compromised from its conception to reflect the most important of modern ethical principles: making money and accumulating power.
we mostly do okay amongst ourselves, but can you name a single treaty with the original owners of this continent that we honored? They shared their land, helped us survive, probably even made a decisive difference in our fight for independence. And then as soon as it was convenient, we tore up the treaties and did our best to exterminate them. When they fought us to a standstill we made new treaties - and then violated those as soon as we had the advantage again.
You really, really don't want to own anything America desires unless you're powerful enough to keep us at bay. Land, oil, banana plantations - we leave a wake of destruction and usurped governments wherever we find valuable assets.
Consider a classroom quiz. Take the lowest grade, and the highest, and find the average of those two. Now - what does that tell you about the combined average of everyone in the class? Almost nothing. It could be a classroom full of brilliant students and one dunce, or full of dunces with one brilliant student, or anything in between. Same thing with temperature - the details matter immensely.
To find the average temperature, you must record the temperature throughout the entire time period, and then average *that* out. Anything else is basically guessing - possibly adequate for "sanity checks" and order-of-magnitude estimates, but not for detecting subtle changes. Try to pull that Tmax+Tmin average on the moon, and you'll generally be off by more than 20C.
Yeah, the biggest risk Canadians face from global warming is probably Americans deciding we need to expand our borders as our own territory goes to hell.
A word of advice - take a good hard look at our track record of treaty violations and genocide with nations who offered to share before making any decisions.
>When was the last time anyone said that about Linux?
Many moons ago, about pre-tabletized Ubuntu.I believe the moment that really drove it home was setting up the same printer on Mac and Linux - Ubuntu was a matter of plugging it in and clicking "yes" when it asked if I wanted to download and install drivers. MacOS was... considerably more than that.
Well, I sure as hell wouldn't sign that contract, would you?
If you sign a contract saying 20% for 10 years after graduation, then the only way they can change that is if the contract also says "or whatever we decide to unilaterally change that to"
Again, you're overlooking the fact that under an ISA *THERE IS NO DEBT*. Debts must be repayed to the tune of a specific monetary amount (plus interest). An income sharing agreement has no such basis.
Also, the reason student loans get extra privileges, in large part, is because hose loans are guaranteed by the government, and so the government wants to make it as hard as possible for you to default and leave them with the bill.
Contrast to an ISA, where the government is not involved at all, and THERE IS NO DEBT to pay off anyway.
>What happens when 'payback' percentage starts being based on your degree? Then you take that into consideration when choosing your degree. If an arts degree requires 40% while an engineering degree requires 10% (because of the much higher expected return), then maybe you should think really hard before wasting everyone's time on an arts degree.
>What happens when you don't take a job the university thinks you should? What's specified in the contract you signed? Probably not much since they can't force you to perform, and thus you'd quickly get out of the job the hard way, while making them look bad in the process.
As with any contract, you want to be careful what you sign. You wouldn't sign a student loan contract without examining the details, I hope?
>They are worried about what they can get NOW, You're describing current universities, that get paid NOW, in exchange for (implied) benefits to you after graduation. If they don't start getting paid until after you graduate, and the total amount they get paid depends entirely on your income for the first 10 years (or whatever the ISA term is) after graduation, they have a strong incentive to make sure: 1) you're not studying something for which you don't show an aptitude 2) you're not being funneled into a career path you're going to be quickly disappointed in 3) you're not pissing away your time on "the college experience" instead of learning useful skills
That does mean that they have incentive to simply reject marginal students, but the students they accept, they're going to groom to make the largest possible amount of money for the first 10 years after graduation. It's still not 100% aligned with your own priorities, but its likely to be far more compatible than the current arrangement where they want you to rack up as much student debt as possible, as quickly as possible, and then good luck paying it off after graduation, because you're not their problem anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be silly. Then who would pay their bribes?
>Google should be able to have a panel with whoever the hell they like and ignore the haters.
What would be the point?
Google seems to have had no particular interest in ethics for a long time. To all appearances, the point of the ethics board was to shut up the haters and salve the developers' consciences enough to keep them hard at work. If it fails at that, then it's a waste of time and money.
I'm not an atheist, but that was rather my point. What exactly are we to think about people that seem to think that number should be far higher? How many would-be monsters in the world rein themselves in only because of their fear or love of God?
Or are they simply so well indoctrinated that they never bother to actually ask themselves the question, and simply assume that they would be monsters without their chains?
You're assuming we're able to flip the Senate in 2020, which would need a far more decisive turnaround than we managed in 2018.
Also, that voting would go along party lines, which seems questionable for the Democratic party, given the resistance it's putting up against the progressives.
It's a sad day when many of our ballsiest Representatives are those that don't actually have any. Maybe it's because without them, the corporations can't get a firm grip?
Mueller explicitly did NOT exonerate Trump. There's a world of difference between "he didn't do it" and "there's not enough evidence to justify trying to impeach a sitting president, when the Senate that would have to convict him obviously has no desire to do so".
Not to mention, we have NO idea what's actually in the report itself, since Barr refuses to allow it to be released, while misrepresenting its contents in a laughably short summary.
What?... Okay, yeah, I guess that makes sense doesn't it? At a given pressure the total outward force on an "equator strip" of a tank would increase linearly with circumference (or radius), which means the tensile strength of the strip needs to do so as well, and thus needs to be proportionally thicker. Hmm. Way to rain on my parade.
Of course, you are assuming the tank is pressurized - the thickness of a tank for liquid propellant with a very low vapor pressure is would be dominated by the need to survive acceleration stresses... which I suppose would create pressure, at least on the back side of the tank, wouldn't it?
Still, there's always the old standby of solid propellants, if one could be found with a high enough ISP.
Of course, that all assumes you're carrying your launching propellant with you, which would be the least-efficient way to do it.
True, but every time I hear someone ask an atheist what keeps them from raping and killing as much as they want if they don't believe in god, I'm glad religion exists to reign in such apparent murderous psychopaths.
What, you think associations don't exist in Britain?
YMCA = Young Men's Christian Association. Try googling before posting stupid questions, it makes you look smarter.
>In the Western world, phosphate usage has declined owing to ecological problems with the damage to lakes and rivers through eutrophication
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Safe for us, directly. Not so much for any animals that live in the water. And anything that threatens the health of our ecosystem, threatens our survival as a species.
Yeah, but tank mass increases far more slowly than fuel mass thanks to the square-cube law, which helps at least.
That's a fair point about telescope arrays, but a gravitational lens telescope doesn't suffer from that problem, with a single lens... thousands? millions? of times larger than Earth's disc, even after blocking out the sun at the center. Plus, I don't think you don't need imaging for a radio antenna, which means you can put your transceiver at the focal point rather than the imaging plane, and increase that 100,000x gain far further.
Missing link: https://www.technologyreview.c...
Yeah, but that name was already mis-taken for legacy speed maintenance systems. Cruise control? Bull. It's speed control at best, cruising also involves staying on the road and not hitting anything.
That was my thought - the propulsion system *is* the rocket. The rest is just a glorified tin can to carry the payload.
Just use a billion times as much fuel - the rocket equation puts no limit on delta-v or payload (which is essentially what braking fuel is), it only states that the amount of fuel needed increases exponentially with the desired delta-V.
Better still, use a propellant with a better isp. Double the isp for the same mass of propellant, and you'll have half your propellant left over after reaching the target speed.
Neither is terribly relevant to the near term, but we're discussing interstellar travel from the perspective of a species that's still basically confined to its home planet. Let's revisit the conversation once we have several thriving offworld colonies, interplanetary trade is routine, and antimatter is a conveniently dense way to store power. Not a whole lot of point in looking to travel beyond our own system before then anyway.
As for telemetry - I'm fairly certain we're not using our most powerful radio-telescope arrays to receive the data from those outer system missions. Plus, our biggest telescope array is still only measured in miles - once we go orbital in a big way we can increase that a million-fold without hardly trying. Not to mention the potential a solar gravitational lens telescope, which would be a lot faster and easier to build and launch than a serious interstellar mission, and give you a much better idea of what to prepare for. From 2000AU out, the image of an Earth-sized planet 35 light years away would be 12.5km across on the focal plane, and increase the intensity of light (and radio) by a factor of 100,000. Makes for a great signal booster as well as a visual scouting tool.
How do you figure? I'm not sure 1/3rd is the proper ratio, but accelerating is going to take a lot more fuel (reaction mass really) than decelerating, since you don't have to decelerate all the fuel you've already used up. And the fuel is likely to be the vast majority of the mass of the entire mission.
If that's all you want out of a class, watch the video lectures and test out. Don't blame other people for your inability to watch movies on your own time.
>So, how can we appoint people and screen out serious conflicts in a timely manner?
More importantly, why would we want to? Those serious conflicts of interest are what's necessary to avoid having your symbolic gesture become an embarrassment. Without them your ethics board might start suggesting courses of action that would interfere with profits, and then you'd be in the position of having to either lose money or obviously ignore your own ethics board.
Much better for everyone (making the decisions) if the board is compromised from its conception to reflect the most important of modern ethical principles: making money and accumulating power.
we mostly do okay amongst ourselves, but can you name a single treaty with the original owners of this continent that we honored? They shared their land, helped us survive, probably even made a decisive difference in our fight for independence. And then as soon as it was convenient, we tore up the treaties and did our best to exterminate them. When they fought us to a standstill we made new treaties - and then violated those as soon as we had the advantage again.
You really, really don't want to own anything America desires unless you're powerful enough to keep us at bay. Land, oil, banana plantations - we leave a wake of destruction and usurped governments wherever we find valuable assets.
That's not how you compute a population average.
Consider a classroom quiz. Take the lowest grade, and the highest, and find the average of those two. Now - what does that tell you about the combined average of everyone in the class? Almost nothing. It could be a classroom full of brilliant students and one dunce, or full of dunces with one brilliant student, or anything in between. Same thing with temperature - the details matter immensely.
To find the average temperature, you must record the temperature throughout the entire time period, and then average *that* out. Anything else is basically guessing - possibly adequate for "sanity checks" and order-of-magnitude estimates, but not for detecting subtle changes. Try to pull that Tmax+Tmin average on the moon, and you'll generally be off by more than 20C.
Yeah, the biggest risk Canadians face from global warming is probably Americans deciding we need to expand our borders as our own territory goes to hell.
A word of advice - take a good hard look at our track record of treaty violations and genocide with nations who offered to share before making any decisions.
>When was the last time anyone said that about Linux?
Many moons ago, about pre-tabletized Ubuntu.I believe the moment that really drove it home was setting up the same printer on Mac and Linux - Ubuntu was a matter of plugging it in and clicking "yes" when it asked if I wanted to download and install drivers. MacOS was... considerably more than that.
Well, I sure as hell wouldn't sign that contract, would you?
If you sign a contract saying 20% for 10 years after graduation, then the only way they can change that is if the contract also says "or whatever we decide to unilaterally change that to"
Again, you're overlooking the fact that under an ISA *THERE IS NO DEBT*. Debts must be repayed to the tune of a specific monetary amount (plus interest). An income sharing agreement has no such basis.
Also, the reason student loans get extra privileges, in large part, is because hose loans are guaranteed by the government, and so the government wants to make it as hard as possible for you to default and leave them with the bill.
Contrast to an ISA, where the government is not involved at all, and THERE IS NO DEBT to pay off anyway.
>What happens when 'payback' percentage starts being based on your degree?
Then you take that into consideration when choosing your degree. If an arts degree requires 40% while an engineering degree requires 10% (because of the much higher expected return), then maybe you should think really hard before wasting everyone's time on an arts degree.
>What happens when you don't take a job the university thinks you should?
What's specified in the contract you signed? Probably not much since they can't force you to perform, and thus you'd quickly get out of the job the hard way, while making them look bad in the process.
As with any contract, you want to be careful what you sign. You wouldn't sign a student loan contract without examining the details, I hope?
>They are worried about what they can get NOW,
You're describing current universities, that get paid NOW, in exchange for (implied) benefits to you after graduation.
If they don't start getting paid until after you graduate, and the total amount they get paid depends entirely on your income for the first 10 years (or whatever the ISA term is) after graduation, they have a strong incentive to make sure:
1) you're not studying something for which you don't show an aptitude
2) you're not being funneled into a career path you're going to be quickly disappointed in
3) you're not pissing away your time on "the college experience" instead of learning useful skills
That does mean that they have incentive to simply reject marginal students, but the students they accept, they're going to groom to make the largest possible amount of money for the first 10 years after graduation. It's still not 100% aligned with your own priorities, but its likely to be far more compatible than the current arrangement where they want you to rack up as much student debt as possible, as quickly as possible, and then good luck paying it off after graduation, because you're not their problem anymore.