Although burning calories is an important part of exercise, more important is the hormone signaling effects that occur. If you want to lose fat rather than just weight exercise is a key component.
Why are police officers armed with lethal rounds in the first place? Less lethal "rubber bullets", actually rubber coated steel spheres, should be more than sufficient for all non-SWAT scenarios. While they aren't death or injury free, the mortality rates are vastly lower than lethal munitions while still having considerable stopping power.
Regulations aren't the best solution for every problem. That said, I don't necessarily think some basic rules on drones are a bad idea. This action is going way too far though. It's like gun regulations, requiring that someone pass a gun safety class is sensible, telling them they can't have their gun with them anywhere except in their home is not.
For now, why do you think drones are such a hot market? Deployment of robotic military and police units will be a key factor in maintaining social control for the elite.
There are three sectors to the economy: Resources, Manufacturing, Services. When we automated the resource sector people moved to manufacturing, when we automated manufacturing people moved to services, when we automate services where will they go?
You're assuming that strong AI is a requirement. I would suggest that expert systems combined with robotics are more than enough to put the vast majority of the population out of work.
Oh, talk to the lawyers. Lots of them are being automated out of a job right now due to advances in pre-trial discovery software. Strong AI isn't necessary for this process to happen, expert systems will get us 90% of the way there.
You know, the first steps to determining if there's even a distant shot in hell of terraforming the place in a century or three.
At the moment I'm not seeing a reason why it's worth the investment. I love space and wish we were doing more but human exploration is expensive and has low ROI. What we really need to do is figure out how to commercialize space, we're not going to get very far at the current pace of a few billion here and there. Only private industry can afford to put in the trillions that would be required to really get things moving.
Get a new book then. Because if the children live near those plants — such as because their parents work there and don't want too long a commute — they may as well study there.
Housing and chemical plants don't mix either. I'm not anti-chemical plants, I'm just saying they don't belong next to where people live, at least not in any community I want to live in. Of course, I believe people should have a right to decide that for themselves, and if they're comfortable living in a community that allows co-location of chemical plants and housing that's fine. I'm even fine with the idea that an area may decide that private covenants are better than zoning rules, I'm just saying it's a local political decision not a general principle.
the fundamental principle of the owner having full control of the property is still violated.
No such thing as full control of property in any sort of civilization, it's not even a good principle. For example, under the full control doctrine a property owner should be able to spray DDT and rent out his back forty as a spent nuclear fuel dump. Both of these things have adverse side effects on other property owners nearby.
The concept of private property is a key part of Western civilization but it's a mistake to turn it into a religion. A private property owner should be allowed to do what they wish, however as with all other rights it's limited to things that don't impact others. You are not Robinson Crusoe living on an uninhabited island.
Houston's use of private covenants for this purpose means that zoning control is effectively in the hands of corporations instead of government. This is probably more economically efficient but isn't necessarily a better outcome for society. For example, according to Wikipedia Chavez High School in Houston is less than a quarter mile from chemical plants owned by Texas Petroleum, Denka Chemical, USS Chemical, and Goodyear Chemical. I'm going to say that's not a good outcome in my book. Government in general is bad at things but sometimes they're still the least bad solution, especially at the local levels where things like zoning regulations are created. That said, I think those decisions should be made at a local level and if an area wants to vote not to have zoning regulations I'm fine with that.
I've been to countries that don't have zoning laws and frankly I wasn't impressed with the results. This is an area where Libertarian philosophy doesn't work well due to externalized costs. For example, there are side effects to you building a factory, high rise office building or high density low cost apartment building next to my single family home that I will experience but you won't pay for. I'm open to alternate solutions but so far zoning seems to be the least bad choice.
The history of countries that live under long term martial law is not a good one. There are excellent reasons why the military and police are separate institutions.
Slashdot Mirror
Or perhaps you merely have an IQ higher than 85?
Although burning calories is an important part of exercise, more important is the hormone signaling effects that occur. If you want to lose fat rather than just weight exercise is a key component.
Why are police officers armed with lethal rounds in the first place? Less lethal "rubber bullets", actually rubber coated steel spheres, should be more than sufficient for all non-SWAT scenarios. While they aren't death or injury free, the mortality rates are vastly lower than lethal munitions while still having considerable stopping power.
Regulations aren't the best solution for every problem. That said, I don't necessarily think some basic rules on drones are a bad idea. This action is going way too far though. It's like gun regulations, requiring that someone pass a gun safety class is sensible, telling them they can't have their gun with them anywhere except in their home is not.
For now, why do you think drones are such a hot market? Deployment of robotic military and police units will be a key factor in maintaining social control for the elite.
You realize that the period prior to the establishment of the Federation was pretty terrible and that's the period we're entering now right?
Personally I'm averse to starving and being homeless, which is where the current system would leave me without work.
I do think it's telling that there is no longer a consensus about it, there used to be.
That would be the optimal outcome yes, the problem is that our socio-economic system isn't setup to work that way.
There are three sectors to the economy: Resources, Manufacturing, Services. When we automated the resource sector people moved to manufacturing, when we automated manufacturing people moved to services, when we automate services where will they go?
You're assuming that strong AI is a requirement. I would suggest that expert systems combined with robotics are more than enough to put the vast majority of the population out of work.
Oh, talk to the lawyers. Lots of them are being automated out of a job right now due to advances in pre-trial discovery software. Strong AI isn't necessary for this process to happen, expert systems will get us 90% of the way there.
If things continue as they proceeding there are three likely outcomes:
1) Tumultuous but non-violent social change to a new order of things, everyone lives happily ever after
2) A successful revolution prior to the deployment of robotic military / police, the 99% execute the 1% and live happily ever after
3) A failed revolution attempted after deployment of robotic military / police, the 1% crush the 99% and live happily ever after
See, all futures are happy, it just depends on your point of view.
First of all, AI creates more jobs than it destroys at the moment.
Citation please, that's a bold and unsupported assertion.
You know, the first steps to determining if there's even a distant shot in hell of terraforming the place in a century or three.
At the moment I'm not seeing a reason why it's worth the investment. I love space and wish we were doing more but human exploration is expensive and has low ROI. What we really need to do is figure out how to commercialize space, we're not going to get very far at the current pace of a few billion here and there. Only private industry can afford to put in the trillions that would be required to really get things moving.
What if I like my coffee black?
Then you sir are a communist or a foreigner.
Didn't work particularly well then either.
Get a new book then. Because if the children live near those plants — such as because their parents work there and don't want too long a commute — they may as well study there.
Housing and chemical plants don't mix either. I'm not anti-chemical plants, I'm just saying they don't belong next to where people live, at least not in any community I want to live in. Of course, I believe people should have a right to decide that for themselves, and if they're comfortable living in a community that allows co-location of chemical plants and housing that's fine. I'm even fine with the idea that an area may decide that private covenants are better than zoning rules, I'm just saying it's a local political decision not a general principle.
the fundamental principle of the owner having full control of the property is still violated.
No such thing as full control of property in any sort of civilization, it's not even a good principle. For example, under the full control doctrine a property owner should be able to spray DDT and rent out his back forty as a spent nuclear fuel dump. Both of these things have adverse side effects on other property owners nearby. The concept of private property is a key part of Western civilization but it's a mistake to turn it into a religion. A private property owner should be allowed to do what they wish, however as with all other rights it's limited to things that don't impact others. You are not Robinson Crusoe living on an uninhabited island.
Houston's use of private covenants for this purpose means that zoning control is effectively in the hands of corporations instead of government. This is probably more economically efficient but isn't necessarily a better outcome for society. For example, according to Wikipedia Chavez High School in Houston is less than a quarter mile from chemical plants owned by Texas Petroleum, Denka Chemical, USS Chemical, and Goodyear Chemical. I'm going to say that's not a good outcome in my book. Government in general is bad at things but sometimes they're still the least bad solution, especially at the local levels where things like zoning regulations are created. That said, I think those decisions should be made at a local level and if an area wants to vote not to have zoning regulations I'm fine with that.
Rich people don't live on streets adjoining the freeway even in California.
Wait, wouldn't that argument run both ways?
I've been to countries that don't have zoning laws and frankly I wasn't impressed with the results. This is an area where Libertarian philosophy doesn't work well due to externalized costs. For example, there are side effects to you building a factory, high rise office building or high density low cost apartment building next to my single family home that I will experience but you won't pay for. I'm open to alternate solutions but so far zoning seems to be the least bad choice.
The history of countries that live under long term martial law is not a good one. There are excellent reasons why the military and police are separate institutions.
I always liked the idea of invisible virtual springs, it makes the universe seem steampunk.
You realize that if followed through that plan would lead to martial law rather than better policing right?