There was arbitrary Apple software on the phone when you bought it. If you trusted that code, why not trust updates ? And what good is your consent if you can't audit the code ?
I've noticed many ATMs are poorly designed, and do the operations such as scanning the card, entering PIN, printing the receipt, counting the money, and cueing the user to take back the card in slow sequential order, instead of combining as many actions as possible.
The only bad part is that the resulting standard is usually an overly complex monstrosity, with every part completely reinvented instead of based on existing protocols.
Money can be traded for resources or labor, neither of which are illusions.
The exploration of space and humanity becoming a galactic species
Those are two completely different things. A bit of puttering around in the solar system isn't going to turn us into a galactic species. In fact, without discovering a magic propulsion system, we will never be a galactic species. And our best (albeit tiny) bet of finding such a magical propulsion is doing raw science right here on Earth, not by trying to walk around in the inhospitable deserts of Mars.
Water desalination takes an awful lot of energy, though, and pumping it through the desert takes quite a bit too, and then you still need the nutrients and something to protect the soil from wind erosion. It's probably smarter to put some EV panels in the desert and drive electric cars.
A country's leader only has a small influence on the course of a country. Blaming all your woes on the leadership, and then sending the country into chaos isn't always a good solution if things aren't going well.
Keep in mind that a lot of current agriculture isn't sustainable. There's depletion in topsoil, aquifers and fertilizer, particularly phosphates. Also, there's not much land area left that we aren't currently using for food production.
Sounds like there is circular reasoning going on between "correct behavior" and "moral human being". I suppose there's no handy little reference to Pirsig's framework somewhere ?
This sounds like a project that the private sector should be able to fund all by themselves. The small NASA budgets are better spent on different goals.
Besides, I thought scientific theories' merits were measured against their utility rather than their accurate predictive capacity.
Arguably, a theory that has more accurate predictive capacity is more useful (unless the extra accuracy means a lot more complex math, in which case it is useful to keep a less accurate but simpler theory around)
Are we really hubristic enough to think we will ever have a theory that predicts and explains everything with 100% accuracy at all levels?
It's certainly possible we'll get there. Maybe with the help of computers.
Slashdot Mirror
There was arbitrary Apple software on the phone when you bought it. If you trusted that code, why not trust updates ? And what good is your consent if you can't audit the code ?
There would be a need if current backdoors rely on Apple's private keys.
But what if you're really a doge ?
I've noticed many ATMs are poorly designed, and do the operations such as scanning the card, entering PIN, printing the receipt, counting the money, and cueing the user to take back the card in slow sequential order, instead of combining as many actions as possible.
...Mastercard is going to consider a selfie run through facial recognition to be as good as a fingerprint
Could be correct. Fingerprints aren't very secure either.
Regular free human beings like me don't have the intention of wiping Israel off the map if we had a chance.
It's easy to cause more casualties on your own side, if that's what you're after.
Celebrities, which tend to have money
Kanye will be glad to hear he's safe.
The only bad part is that the resulting standard is usually an overly complex monstrosity, with every part completely reinvented instead of based on existing protocols.
Money is an illusion
Money can be traded for resources or labor, neither of which are illusions.
The exploration of space and humanity becoming a galactic species
Those are two completely different things. A bit of puttering around in the solar system isn't going to turn us into a galactic species. In fact, without discovering a magic propulsion system, we will never be a galactic species. And our best (albeit tiny) bet of finding such a magical propulsion is doing raw science right here on Earth, not by trying to walk around in the inhospitable deserts of Mars.
Still, going to Mars would have mattered much less.
They should have done it on a Friday.
Water desalination takes an awful lot of energy, though, and pumping it through the desert takes quite a bit too, and then you still need the nutrients and something to protect the soil from wind erosion. It's probably smarter to put some EV panels in the desert and drive electric cars.
A country's leader only has a small influence on the course of a country. Blaming all your woes on the leadership, and then sending the country into chaos isn't always a good solution if things aren't going well.
Is it even true that many environmentalists get so excited ? I've heard several environmental groups express the same concerns as you.
Keep in mind that a lot of current agriculture isn't sustainable. There's depletion in topsoil, aquifers and fertilizer, particularly phosphates. Also, there's not much land area left that we aren't currently using for food production.
Going to Mars is a toy project that has no relevance to daily life of ordinary Russians. Invading Crimea does.
Sounds like there is circular reasoning going on between "correct behavior" and "moral human being". I suppose there's no handy little reference to Pirsig's framework somewhere ?
Russia wouldn't have to step in and help Assad if US led forces didn't try to topple him.
Still, there is not enough money to all those things at the same time. Choices will have to be made.
but Asimov's stories were all about how those 3 laws failed to produce correct behavior
Let's start by defining what you mean by "correct" behavior.
Should we interpret the lack of details as a failure ?
This sounds like a project that the private sector should be able to fund all by themselves. The small NASA budgets are better spent on different goals.
Besides, I thought scientific theories' merits were measured against their utility rather than their accurate predictive capacity.
Arguably, a theory that has more accurate predictive capacity is more useful (unless the extra accuracy means a lot more complex math, in which case it is useful to keep a less accurate but simpler theory around)
Are we really hubristic enough to think we will ever have a theory that predicts and explains everything with 100% accuracy at all levels?
It's certainly possible we'll get there. Maybe with the help of computers.
Wind maximum capacity is pretty meaningless, I believe the average production is around 1/3 of rated.
In that case, the number isn't meaningless. You just need to divide it by 3.