For all we know, this might've been a factor in the nuclear cheating scandal
That was a promotion system design problem. They were all getting excellent scores but the promotion system was basically linked to perfection. No one is perfect, but when you're strongly motivated you'll find some way to cope. The outcome was inevitable.
Or... faith in America’s brand of freedom may be more a conceit or a faith based belief
There are other historical examples, it's not just the United States. The more a society provides opportunity for the little guy the more innovation tends to occur. It's not just government institutions either, this happens in the private sector as well.
With an active CPU behind it, certainly this system can be more secure than the current card system.
Adding an active CPU != more secure. They're exchanging a poorly secured but isolated token for a poorly secured but networked device. Sounds like a drop in security to me.
Do you think only us good ol Americans have a lock on creativity and knowledge?
No, but that does tend to go along with a free society. Despite our problems, we have more freedom than they do in most respects. Central planning has some benefits but creativity isn't one of them.
The original system was completely corrupt in different ways, I'm not sure that would really be an improvement. My suggestion would be to switch to proportional representation for the senate. It doesn't remove the corruption issue, but it does reduce the total dominance of the two party system by giving minority parties an actual voice and that should introduce more accountability and churn between parties. If you leave the house as being regional representation I think we'd have a better balance of selection methods.
The practice of paid lobbying ought to be outlawed altogether, with long prison terms in store for those who break that law.
Wishful thinking and not workable. If we're going to go with pie in the sky solutions I prefer NASCAR style jumpsuits for all the politicians so I know who they belong to.
Lobbying in inevitable, they'd just find some other way to do it. We already have a well established mechanism for discouraging things we don't like but are going to happen anyways, it's called taxes. Of course the lobbyists would never allow politicians to pass a lobbyist tax so it's kind of a moot point.
Actually Reagan was popular because he had a positive message. People want to be optimistic about the future. Oh sure, you can get a little mileage by showing how terrible your opponent is but the big payoff is in painting a rosy future and then saying "this is how we're going to get there". If the Republicans can field someone like that they'll win in a landslide. Of course a person like that would never make it through the primaries nowadays so the Democrats will probably win in 2016.
Is there a shortage of crew applicants or extreme upwards pressure on crew wages? If not then the safety standards are probably acceptable. At this point we're talking about a specialist labor market so the usual problems of worker desperation aren't relevant.
Travel in suborbital space for the wealthiers accomplish nothing.
By itself no, but orbital solar power stations, asteroid mining and zero gee manufacturing would accomplish things and this helps us move in that direction.
There were quite a few people afraid that the Depression would return when the war was over, but that didn't happen.
The fact that we had bombed everyone else's factories back into the stone age might have had a small impact on that. If you're suggesting we repeat that activity I suppose your idea might have theoretical merit though I wouldn't recommend it.
What they don't bother to put in TFS is that the 85% of corn and 90% of soybeans currently running modified genes are only modified to make them immune to glyphosate (aka "Roundup-ready"). The only real risk is that maybe by some huge stroke of bad luck, some other plant (a weed, say) picks up glyphosate resistance from these genes.
And you have a 30 year longitudinal study to back up that bald assertion?
This is always the problem with people imagining horrifying artificial intelligences that will snuff out humanity. To do that, you have to be motivated to achieve that end.
Actually it's much scarier than that. The most likely outcome is that they'll simply be indifferent to our needs. If that sounds benign, realize that they would have few of the same biosphere needs as us and that many of our activities, like growing crops, would take up space they could use for other purposes.
If you read through the Arkansas constitution they explicitly use the word right when they mean that, for example the right to suffrage in section 3. If you can't tell the difference between a right and the the establishment of a public good then I'm not sure we have much to talk about.
So you're in favor of forcing to people to work if they don't wish to even when it's not required? Throughout history the rule "If you don't work, you don't eat" has generally been a good one despite the moral problems because we've needed every hand available. In a world where many people become economically unnecessary that rule could have terrible consequences.
Seeing as the right to a thorough and free public education is written into the constitutions of most, of not all, of the states within the US, that would make education a civil right.
I was thinking Federal law, but thanks for pointing out the State Constitution issue. Here is a link with decent extracts from all 50 state constitutions:
http://pabarcrc.org/pdf/Molly%...
Essentially the language for each state says something along the lines of "Education is a good idea and good for us, we should do that". I don't see any language suggesting it's a "right". The state constitutions say lots of things, not all of them are rights.
Slashdot Mirror
For all we know, this might've been a factor in the nuclear cheating scandal
That was a promotion system design problem. They were all getting excellent scores but the promotion system was basically linked to perfection. No one is perfect, but when you're strongly motivated you'll find some way to cope. The outcome was inevitable.
Well in this case I was referring to hackers.
Or... faith in America’s brand of freedom may be more a conceit or a faith based belief
There are other historical examples, it's not just the United States. The more a society provides opportunity for the little guy the more innovation tends to occur. It's not just government institutions either, this happens in the private sector as well.
With an active CPU behind it, certainly this system can be more secure than the current card system.
Adding an active CPU != more secure. They're exchanging a poorly secured but isolated token for a poorly secured but networked device. Sounds like a drop in security to me.
What China is going to want is the hard won implementation details.
Cheer up comrade, that's what the people's cyber army is for!
Do you think only us good ol Americans have a lock on creativity and knowledge?
No, but that does tend to go along with a free society. Despite our problems, we have more freedom than they do in most respects. Central planning has some benefits but creativity isn't one of them.
The original system was completely corrupt in different ways, I'm not sure that would really be an improvement. My suggestion would be to switch to proportional representation for the senate. It doesn't remove the corruption issue, but it does reduce the total dominance of the two party system by giving minority parties an actual voice and that should introduce more accountability and churn between parties. If you leave the house as being regional representation I think we'd have a better balance of selection methods.
The practice of paid lobbying ought to be outlawed altogether, with long prison terms in store for those who break that law.
Wishful thinking and not workable. If we're going to go with pie in the sky solutions I prefer NASCAR style jumpsuits for all the politicians so I know who they belong to.
Lobbying in inevitable, they'd just find some other way to do it. We already have a well established mechanism for discouraging things we don't like but are going to happen anyways, it's called taxes. Of course the lobbyists would never allow politicians to pass a lobbyist tax so it's kind of a moot point.
Actually Reagan was popular because he had a positive message. People want to be optimistic about the future. Oh sure, you can get a little mileage by showing how terrible your opponent is but the big payoff is in painting a rosy future and then saying "this is how we're going to get there". If the Republicans can field someone like that they'll win in a landslide. Of course a person like that would never make it through the primaries nowadays so the Democrats will probably win in 2016.
Quite a few actually. Obviously they should build customer risk aversion into their cost models though.
Is there a shortage of crew applicants or extreme upwards pressure on crew wages? If not then the safety standards are probably acceptable. At this point we're talking about a specialist labor market so the usual problems of worker desperation aren't relevant.
That's mostly just conservatives and libertarians. It's a matter of faith for them that the private sector does everything better.
More efficiently, which may or may not be "better" depending on your objectives.
Travel in suborbital space for the wealthiers accomplish nothing.
By itself no, but orbital solar power stations, asteroid mining and zero gee manufacturing would accomplish things and this helps us move in that direction.
Tell that to HR will you?
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, food can be both terrible and delicious at the same time now.
There were quite a few people afraid that the Depression would return when the war was over, but that didn't happen.
The fact that we had bombed everyone else's factories back into the stone age might have had a small impact on that. If you're suggesting we repeat that activity I suppose your idea might have theoretical merit though I wouldn't recommend it.
Doing something always helps the economy.
Broken window fallacy. It only helps if the economy if the net value created is positive.
I am a citizen of the United States of America. I realize what is going on
But how many of my fellow Americans know?
And more importantly, how many of them give a damn?
I know, I give a damn, how does that make any difference?
Just for amusement value doesn't that violate the CAN-SPAM act?
What they don't bother to put in TFS is that the 85% of corn and 90% of soybeans currently running modified genes are only modified to make them immune to glyphosate (aka "Roundup-ready"). The only real risk is that maybe by some huge stroke of bad luck, some other plant (a weed, say) picks up glyphosate resistance from these genes.
And you have a 30 year longitudinal study to back up that bald assertion?
This is always the problem with people imagining horrifying artificial intelligences that will snuff out humanity. To do that, you have to be motivated to achieve that end.
Actually it's much scarier than that. The most likely outcome is that they'll simply be indifferent to our needs. If that sounds benign, realize that they would have few of the same biosphere needs as us and that many of our activities, like growing crops, would take up space they could use for other purposes.
If you read through the Arkansas constitution they explicitly use the word right when they mean that, for example the right to suffrage in section 3. If you can't tell the difference between a right and the the establishment of a public good then I'm not sure we have much to talk about.
So you're in favor of forcing to people to work if they don't wish to even when it's not required? Throughout history the rule "If you don't work, you don't eat" has generally been a good one despite the moral problems because we've needed every hand available. In a world where many people become economically unnecessary that rule could have terrible consequences.
Seeing as the right to a thorough and free public education is written into the constitutions of most, of not all, of the states within the US, that would make education a civil right.
I was thinking Federal law, but thanks for pointing out the State Constitution issue. Here is a link with decent extracts from all 50 state constitutions: http://pabarcrc.org/pdf/Molly%... Essentially the language for each state says something along the lines of "Education is a good idea and good for us, we should do that". I don't see any language suggesting it's a "right". The state constitutions say lots of things, not all of them are rights.
Ebola is not transmissible until the patient is symptomatic.
Not transmissible and very low probability of transmission are not the same thing.