Actually India's fertility rate is around 2.4. But this is replacement level for India. (And it's still dropping year by year.)
In developed countries 2.1 is considered replacement level, not 2.0, because some people die as children or young adults and do not fulfill their expected fertility. But in India more people die at young ages, so the replacement level is higher. The worldwide replacement level has been calculated to be 2.33, so 2.4 seems like a good guess for India.
A few years ago when people talked about air pollution, they talked about China. The AQI in Chinese cities was routinely over 400, and before the 2008 Olympics, they shut down hundreds of factories and banned half the cars from the road in an attempt to make the air temporarily cleaner. But now Chinese air seems to be much better - Beijing's AQI is said to be just 30 in this article (though it must vary substantially by day, like it does everywhere).
It seems China has passed the stage of building polluting heavy industry, and reached the stage where there is enough of a middle class to demand tolerable air. It seems India is just now reaching the first stage.
Why build an underground freeway, when an underground subway tunnel of the same size can carry approximately 10 times as many people? (1000 people per subway train, 30 trains per hour, vs 2000 cars per hour in a lane of freeway)
Your rent is much more expensive than it has to be.
Picking a city with a reasonably good job market (Houston), I see it's easy to find a 3-bedroom apartment for $1500/month or $18000/year. The three people who would live in this apartment would get a total of $30000/year, so rent would eat up 60% of their guaranteed income. That's still a large fraction, but I didn't even try to hunt for affordable apartments, I just looked at the metro area as a whole, so I'm sure one could find much cheaper.
Would it be luxurious living on $10000/year? Of course not. That's why nearly everyone would look for a job in addition to their guaranteed income. But even without a job, you'd still have food on the table and a roof over your head.
$10,400 per year. We're still talking about $2.02 Trillion
Yes, $10k/year is a reasonable amount. It is more than enough if you live with roommates outside the Bay Area.
Of course, since we already spend $1.3 trillion on pensions, a total of $2 trillion is not *that* much more. It would mean raising the federal budget (currently $3.504 trillion) by $700 billion, i.e. a 20% increase in revenue. That means if previously 15% of your income went to taxes, now it would be 18%. Is that worth it to have a $10k/year basic income (which you would get too)? I think so.
Actually, Obama's case is more interesting. In 1996, running for Illinois state Senate, he was pro gay marriage. Later, when he was running for US Senate and the presidency, he was anti. In 2012 he switched back to pro.
Scott Adams is a compulsive cynic, who seems incapable of having a sincere, non-sarcastic thought. This cynicism is what makes his comics so entertaining, but it makes him badly equipped to comment thoughtfully on the real world.
The question of what Donald Trump "really believes" has no answer. It is a category error.
When he utters words, his primary intent is not to *say* something, to describe a set of facts in the world; his primary intent is to *do* something, i.e., to position himself in a social hierarchy. This essential distinction explains why Trump has so flummoxed the media and its fact-checkers; it’s as though they are critiquing the color choices of someone who is colorblind.
It's not pulling "random" text lines. It's pulling the text lines that best fit the context, giving (I assume) a somewhat convincing illusion that there is a person on the other end.
This program is clearly not conscious or intelligent in the sense that human beings are. But the current usage of the term "AI" does not require that.
When ULA woke up and realized they were at least six years behind SpaceX in engine design, they went to Blue Origin. Their next generation main lift stage will based on the Blue Origin design. [washingtonpost.com] That's called being asleep at the switch.
Is that any different from Google buying Keyhole and Quest Visual, which became Google Earth and the Google Translate camera feature? Why expect one company to have all the new and great ideas?
They are happy to tell you that they have their affiliated PACs and supporters coordinated in a campaign to influence debate moderators to "fact check" Trump during the debate, [nytimes.com] producing an advantage for Clinton.
So "fact checking" is bound to favor Clinton? It seems that reality really does have a liberal bias.
Self driving cars will allow travels at 4x current speeds. You may love driving and owning cars but going 200 miles per hour trumps all that.
Not gonna happen. Roads are built with a certain turning radius. Go much faster than that, and the ride becomes uncomfortable like a roller coaster, and the car's tires will not be able to effectively grip the road. So speeds will go up marginally rather than by a factor of 4.
They also count all religions together, versus individual companies. Apple vs the Roman Catholic diocese (?) of America would be a more interesting comparison.
And yet, in Western countries, animals such as bears are doing fine, and once-rare species like bison and wolves are recovering nicely.
Poaching of African wildlife is a major problem, but if central Africa manages to decrease its poverty and warfare the way the rest of the world has done, its animals will survive too. If not, they will still survive in zoos.
The largest animals will be the best protected by humans. Witness the giant panda, which is no longer endangered due to conservation efforts. The same will be true of elephants, giraffe, bears, gorillas, whales, and any other animals we care about, which includes pretty much all the large ones.
They are a taxi company. Offering prices lower than the market rate. So of course they are losing tons of money.
Their goal is to roll out self-driving taxis before they go bankrupt. If they succeed in being the first company with self-driving taxis, they will become incredibly successful. Because of this possibility, they have attracted a huge amount of investment. This allows them to lose lots of money for a long time without going bankrupt.
In the short term, customers are winners from Uber's lower prices (disregarding legal/ethical issues, which are real, but tangential to my description of the business model).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually India's fertility rate is around 2.4. But this is replacement level for India. (And it's still dropping year by year.)
In developed countries 2.1 is considered replacement level, not 2.0, because some people die as children or young adults and do not fulfill their expected fertility. But in India more people die at young ages, so the replacement level is higher. The worldwide replacement level has been calculated to be 2.33, so 2.4 seems like a good guess for India.
A few years ago when people talked about air pollution, they talked about China. The AQI in Chinese cities was routinely over 400, and before the 2008 Olympics, they shut down hundreds of factories and banned half the cars from the road in an attempt to make the air temporarily cleaner. But now Chinese air seems to be much better - Beijing's AQI is said to be just 30 in this article (though it must vary substantially by day, like it does everywhere).
It seems China has passed the stage of building polluting heavy industry, and reached the stage where there is enough of a middle class to demand tolerable air. It seems India is just now reaching the first stage.
Why build an underground freeway, when an underground subway tunnel of the same size can carry approximately 10 times as many people? (1000 people per subway train, 30 trains per hour, vs 2000 cars per hour in a lane of freeway)
An open and ongoing investigation is powerful leverage to avoid cutting intelligence budgets, or revoking mandates.
There cannot be an ongoing investigation, because presidents are immune from prosecution while in office.
Not just ad/search. Gmail and Google Maps/Earth were also revolutionary for the consumer.
You don't need TV. But the companies that profit off TV need you to watch TV. And if the way to do that is to "reinvent" it...
The rights holders are the problem and will never allow this.
That's what they said about iTunes, and Apple found a way. So I wouldn't count them out here...
Your rent is much more expensive than it has to be.
Picking a city with a reasonably good job market (Houston), I see it's easy to find a 3-bedroom apartment for $1500/month or $18000/year. The three people who would live in this apartment would get a total of $30000/year, so rent would eat up 60% of their guaranteed income. That's still a large fraction, but I didn't even try to hunt for affordable apartments, I just looked at the metro area as a whole, so I'm sure one could find much cheaper.
Would it be luxurious living on $10000/year? Of course not. That's why nearly everyone would look for a job in addition to their guaranteed income. But even without a job, you'd still have food on the table and a roof over your head.
$10,400 per year. We're still talking about $2.02 Trillion
Yes, $10k/year is a reasonable amount. It is more than enough if you live with roommates outside the Bay Area.
Of course, since we already spend $1.3 trillion on pensions, a total of $2 trillion is not *that* much more. It would mean raising the federal budget (currently $3.504 trillion) by $700 billion, i.e. a 20% increase in revenue. That means if previously 15% of your income went to taxes, now it would be 18%. Is that worth it to have a $10k/year basic income (which you would get too)? I think so.
Actually, Obama's case is more interesting. In 1996, running for Illinois state Senate, he was pro gay marriage. Later, when he was running for US Senate and the presidency, he was anti. In 2012 he switched back to pro.
source
Scott Adams is a compulsive cynic, who seems incapable of having a sincere, non-sarcastic thought. This cynicism is what makes his comics so entertaining, but it makes him badly equipped to comment thoughtfully on the real world.
The question of what Donald Trump "really believes" has no answer. It is a category error.
When he utters words, his primary intent is not to *say* something, to describe a set of facts in the world; his primary intent is to *do* something, i.e., to position himself in a social hierarchy. This essential distinction explains why Trump has so flummoxed the media and its fact-checkers; it’s as though they are critiquing the color choices of someone who is colorblind.
It's not pulling "random" text lines. It's pulling the text lines that best fit the context, giving (I assume) a somewhat convincing illusion that there is a person on the other end.
This program is clearly not conscious or intelligent in the sense that human beings are. But the current usage of the term "AI" does not require that.
So which are the great movies of the 00's and 10's?
When ULA woke up and realized they were at least six years behind SpaceX in engine design, they went to Blue Origin. Their next generation main lift stage will based on the Blue Origin design. [washingtonpost.com] That's called being asleep at the switch.
Is that any different from Google buying Keyhole and Quest Visual, which became Google Earth and the Google Translate camera feature? Why expect one company to have all the new and great ideas?
Which recent events in particular? (honest question)
Well duh, you're on Slashdot.
They are happy to tell you that they have their affiliated PACs and supporters coordinated in a campaign to influence debate moderators to "fact check" Trump during the debate, [nytimes.com] producing an advantage for Clinton.
So "fact checking" is bound to favor Clinton? It seems that reality really does have a liberal bias.
Self driving cars will allow travels at 4x current speeds. You may love driving and owning cars but going 200 miles per hour trumps all that.
Not gonna happen. Roads are built with a certain turning radius. Go much faster than that, and the ride becomes uncomfortable like a roller coaster, and the car's tires will not be able to effectively grip the road. So speeds will go up marginally rather than by a factor of 4.
They also count all religions together, versus individual companies. Apple vs the Roman Catholic diocese (?) of America would be a more interesting comparison.
And yet, in Western countries, animals such as bears are doing fine, and once-rare species like bison and wolves are recovering nicely.
Poaching of African wildlife is a major problem, but if central Africa manages to decrease its poverty and warfare the way the rest of the world has done, its animals will survive too. If not, they will still survive in zoos.
The largest animals will be the best protected by humans. Witness the giant panda, which is no longer endangered due to conservation efforts. The same will be true of elephants, giraffe, bears, gorillas, whales, and any other animals we care about, which includes pretty much all the large ones.
The problem is insurance companies don't know enough about your diet and lifestyle. This allows them to know.
At the supermarket you can buy eggs, or you can buy lemons, or you can buy bread. There are lots of options.
OP is asking for options in the news feed. All of them supported by advertising, like at present.
FB has nothing to lose by offering this.
They are a taxi company. Offering prices lower than the market rate. So of course they are losing tons of money.
Their goal is to roll out self-driving taxis before they go bankrupt. If they succeed in being the first company with self-driving taxis, they will become incredibly successful. Because of this possibility, they have attracted a huge amount of investment. This allows them to lose lots of money for a long time without going bankrupt.
In the short term, customers are winners from Uber's lower prices (disregarding legal/ethical issues, which are real, but tangential to my description of the business model).