My guess is that startups are communicating in the language that their customers (aka venture capitalists) understand. Sadly, that isn't the language that their beta users (aka customers) understand...
Confusing, well, simply imagine the message you are trying to communicate is this... "blah, blah, blah, fear of missing out, yada, yada, yada..."
but CO2 is still a greenhouse gas and H2O is not).
With all due respect, H2O *is* a greenhouse gas. In fact water vapor is the MOST important greenhouse gas when it comes to climate. However, the so-called environmental-activists making all the noise know that we cannot do anything about water vapor so it is routinely ignored.
Luckily I live in a country where that is explicitly forbidden and all code automatically belongs to the creator (unless in a work contract).
I don't think the situation is different here than in your country. You can read the UCLA copyright policy...
According to UCLA policy, the copyright on Student work is owned by the Author if it was produced by a registered student without the use of University funds (other than Student Financial Aid), that is produced outside any University employment. Includes all coursework, term papers, theses and other work, as long as the student is not employed as a participant in a sponsored project where research results may be obligated to a third party.
Given that Professor Klug's research areas was Computational Biomechanics at UCLA, I would speculate that nobody forced him to sign rights to the professor, the lab nor the university. However, if there was sponsored research that was related to his thesis (apparently he was working on his thesis for 10 years someone was probably paying him something), perhaps there might have been some copyright ambiguity is some of his research was paid for by other companies (which is akin to a work contract). if this was the case, perhaps other researchers on the same research contract could presumably get access to the software that he wrote because it might have been allowed by the sponsor (even if the student didn't *like* it).
In addition, in California, an employer cannot simply force an employee to assign copyrights to software that they develop on their own time independent of employment. The employment law as it is written is here... If there was such an agreement, it would be void as it is unenforceable under California law.
When an environmentalist engineer says to an environmentalist politician that "This $100 million solar farm will be useless unless we also invest $500 million in energy storage and infrastructure" the response will always be "Why are you bashing solar cells? I'm firing you and replacing you with someone who cares about the environment." rather than "OK, I guess I'll have to find another $500 million in funding".
Then that environmentalist "politician" probably won't be able to produce that $100M in funding either.
I'm sure a *real* politician would immediately know that this whole thing is a $700M** solar farm project because *real* politicians have PR staffs that know when you are selling things, the ribbon makes the package...
If there is a solar construction company that wants to construct the $100M project designed by some environmentalist enginerd, I'm sure there's another construction company that would happily make a $500M energy storage and infrastructure project. I'm sure both tconstruction companies would love to cooperate to spread around enough grease to get other politicians on board. I find it amusing that enginerds (myself included) sometimes forget that it's the construction companies that the politicians are voting for, not the project....
**In government math, $100M+$500M = $700M because $100M needs to be spend on lobbying, administrative jobs, minority contracting, and job set-asides to other districts to get others on board and that money has to come from somewhere...
It's my understanding that "renewable" applies to energy sources that are continually replenished (over human timescales) and are *literally* renewable. The sun's energy is not being replenished as it burns, and so is not really "renewable".
The combustion of hydrogen could be considered renewable in this sense, because burning it creates water vapor, and you can extract hydrogen from water. Energy sources that depend on the hydrological cycle would be considered renewable because that process ensures that the supply remains steady, even while it may be continually being used.
Hydrogen is not "renewable energy" source. Hydrogen is effectively a "battery" as it stores energy in chemical form. You have to put in energy to extract hydrogen from water. You recover the energy when you burn hydrogen. If you burn it with oxygen and you recapture the resulting water back you can recycle to extract hydrogen from the water again.**
Renewable energy is really a code word for energy sources that are converted into commercially viable form from large energy sources on human timescales. On earth, the "large" sources are basically solar, geothermal, nuclear, inertial/gravitaional. PV, wind farm, hydro-electric, and petroleum are all basically "solar", the only difference is the conversion timescale which is what distinguishes renewable. Commercially viable petroleum doesn't get conversion from "solar" in human timescales and is not renewable.
**Theoretically, you could do the same with methane. You can put energy into making methane from CO2 and H2O (basically what some bacteria like Archaea do) and then recover then energy when you burn the methane. If you recapture the resulting CO2 and H2O, you can recycle to reform the methane. The main differences are that currently we don't recapture because it's "cheaper" to get new methane than to put energy into making methane, or similarly recapturing the water to resplit to extract hydrogen isn't as cheap as it is to make new hydrogen from methane.
Education is not the reason why Japan is experiencing a population growth freeze. Japanese means of production are incredibly female-unfriendly (I've been in Japan, I've seen it.) A woman gets the choice of either work or have babies. There is little infrastructure or services for affordable child care. Even with maternity leave, the system makes it impossible and costly for a married woman to go back to work.
This is very unlike other developed countries.
And yet in the USA, somehow we make that situation work: We let in immigrants... (at least for the time being)
Actually, the anecdotal reason I've heard is that many men in japan (and I've heard the same in other parts of asia as well) are considered by many asian women to be pretty much unmarriable resulting in about 1/3 of women over thirty are unmarried. The social and legal framework for women in marriage is so poor in these countries that many women who can afford it simply just stay single. The reasons given for men being unmarriable are diverse, but most are social (e.g., obsessed with childish things, not willing to assist in domestic chores, workaholics, stay out with work colleagues, etc.). And the way divorce laws are written mean that it's a big risk for the women (for apparently little perceived gain). I'm not sure it's as simple as it being an economics "means-of-production" issue. It's really more of a social issue.
Education is simply the enabler to give these women a choice, so the way I look at it in a way it is the reason for the population implosion.
CEOs (and other C-level types) are routinely insured for such legal fees (paid for by the company of course) so... no real risk to her. But you know, because they have no personal risk like that, and get a big payout if they turn out to be incompetent and get fired, is exactly why they deserve 8 figure salaries, right?
Oh... wait...
Actually, C-type are generally indemnified by the company, not independently insured. There is a difference.
Indemnification is that the company itself promises to pay for legal consul and any resulting judgments against for actions you take in the course of your job (save some fraudulent action on your part). The directors and officers insurance that the company purchases to cover this may or may not fully cover this liability in the case that the company fails**. The theory is that plaintiff lawyers generally won't sue for judgments they can't get (only so much blood from a turnip) so as long as the limit is high enough, plaintiffs will settle for the insurance limit.
Of course the employment contract with most C-types generally require the company to maintain a certain amount of "side A" coverage but with a unicorn company, buying enough to satisfy investors losses might be very expensive, so companies often buy some type of umbrella excess "side A" coverage supplement at a higher limit, but plaintiff lawyers can often bleed this umbrella coverage by lengthy corporate investigations and the person that is eventually sued can't do anything about it...
**Such policies are pretty complicated. The "side A" coverage in such a policy would pay the person in case the company can't pay the indemnity (e.g., goes BK), where "side B" would pay to the company if it needed to tap it to pay an indemnity but might be unavailable if the company was insolvent or under administration by a court.
Sharp has always tried do be 3/4 of the price and 1/2 the quality of Sony. I used to hate having to sell Sharp when I worked retail. So often I'd lose a customer for good.
AFAIK, Sony didn't make LCDs for their TVs, most of the panels are made by Sharp or Samsung (depending on the models). For the smaller Sony branded TVs, sony went with even cheaper taiwanese panel makers (e.g, CPT, AUO, CMO). Sony did augment their TVs with their own digital signal processing logic and LED back-lighting scheme, but I'm pretty sure panel was pretty much the same one in Sharp...
These parents can afford a Model X but they send their kids to public school in Chicago.
A Model X is over $100K and maybe lasts 5 years, where private school in Chicago can run you about the same (e.g., Montessori Academy of Chicago sets you back about $20K/year)... Of course the ability to spend money isn't the same as spending priorities. Hey if you can't afford both;^)
Go figure - the quality of education can't be all that bad.
Whose education? What the parents received to make the choice or what the kids will receive in the school?;^) FWIW, I generally personally recommend public over private schools (even if it was affordable) except in extreme cases (e.g., genius kid, or massive gang infiltration)
Not in Europe. The US system is a failure and everywhere else is doing better science.
Well, I guess after about a decade, Europe is apparently jonesing become more like the US system again...
In 2007 the US, George Bush signed the bill that required all NIH funded research to be open access. This culminated efforts starting back in 2004 voluntarily open access publicly funded research in the NIH. The NIH is the world's largest non-military funding source of research. The law requires manuscripts must be put into PubMed Central *immediately* upon acceptance by a peer-reviewed journal (not after it's published).
It appears this new policy direction in the EU is basically following the US's lead in this area (and improving on it by requiring access to data as well)... We welcome Europe to join this open-access system that is a "failure"...
ACARS transmits information. It's commonplace for positional data downlinked over ACARS to be the primary navigational system's position at the time the downlink is sent. Nowadays, that's typically a GPS position.
Are you sure that they use GPS positions? I thought nearly all ACARS position reports are made manually by current aircraft an thus are generally waypoints. The newer ADS-B are of course more automated and thus use GPS positions.
A far simpler solution is to simply have all planes continuously broadcast their GPS location whenever they go below a certain altitude or descend too quickly. Have them broadcast using a satellite phone system that covers the ENTIRE world - including the oceans, of course. Yes this would require some new satellites - but it is a global problem that the UN could easily solve with money.
What is the reason existing Iridium satellites, or geostationary communication satellites can't be used to provide a near continuous transmission of at least basic data (position, speed, etc.) at a modest update rate? I'd guess even if few kbs rate would be plenty.
Commercial aircraft *already* do broadcast pretty much continuously using ACARS...
The problem is twofold 1. Planes fly very high and go fast and they have wings which generate aerodynamic lift which result in a huge search area when something goes wrong and they stop sending these pings... 2. The ACARS system is very old and currently doesn't transmit GPS information and the location determined by a combination of radar and triangulation. The newer ADS-B system will remedy this as it adds tracking information, but is currently only being deployed now and does not exist in older aircraft.
In fact ADS-B is *already* planned to link with iridium satellites (with newer satellites to be launched in the next few years), but up-linking with geosync satelllite isn't very practical (because they are very far away, and they don't launch new ones very often)...
But of course/.-readers have the whole world figured out already, so maybe we can lobby scrap the ADS-B system and equip all new aircraft with USB sticks instead...
I think you're viewing "creative work" through a very narrow lens. Creative work isn't limited to creating music or art. Just about anything an algorithm would be bad at -- read: needs understanding of human emotions -- would fall under this category. This could be something as simple as wanting a human nanny instead of a robot one. Or wanting a waiter instead of a touchscreen.
And the very existence of "doggy hotels", "cuddle for hire", "personal yoga instructor" and a myriad of other jobs that could easily be automated but isn't indicates humans tend to have a preference for inventing things other humans may not need, but want and are willing to pay for.
The reality is that basic income is really just welfare in cash. The "fail" is that it doesn't take in consideration the premium costs of being in an economy vs being outside. Why is it that people move to cities even though there is a premium to be paid in cost of living? Ability to participate more fully in the economy. Outside this environment costs are lower, but you don't get to participate as much. Outside completely, costs are minimal, but you can never get in the game. Having a job is really like the tax you have to pay to play in the game (the ante so to speak). The bigger the game, the bigger the ante. Forcing the ante to be small (e.g. basic income) generally means there isn't enough action for the house (e.g., the govt).
This is why I like earned income credit better than basic income... It's still welfare, but instead of forcing down the ante, you subsidize the ante to get people in the real game... Unfortunately and EIC strategy might not work if there aren't *any* jobs to be had...
Frankly, it's usually the less mathematically astute individuals who are playing the lottery in the first place. I have nothing against people who play for fun, but if you are playing for a chance to get rich then you are mistaken.
Well, if I'm not mistaken, all people play the uterus lottery, and the winners get inheritances.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say most of the people that became wealthy didn't specifically seek it out as part of a mathematical formula and more often than not got wealthy as a side-effect of other motivations (sometimes "fun"). Thus there's no particular reason to the children of such people to be much different than people who win a traditional lottery.
Perhaps there's some slight argument than there's some *nature* argument that such children got "good-genes", or some *nurture* argument that the rich parents instill some magic "hard-working" values onto their offspring, but that effect is probably just on they margin (you could have "good-parents" and win a traditonal lottery). They still simply won a lottery that they were forced to play and being mathematically astute or not had nothing to do with choosing to be born (but maybe there was some "fun" in their parent's contributions to the endeavor)...
If you don't think inherited wealth ruins the rich...
Actually, I do think inherited wealth ruins the rich... I'm not aware of any specific studies, but I think many people share that fear.
On the high-profile side (e.g., Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Sting), many have publicly shared that they have a strong desire not make their kids into trustafarians... As another data point, Merrill Lynch Wealth Management indicated that 2/3rds of the people setting up trusts have indicated their concern about the negative impact of passing on wealth to their children...
Then there's the well known issues with lottery winners. This group is well studied (mostly because usually winners are public record). In one study, 70% of Florida lottery winners were bankrupt within 5 years. Apparently, overall, your odds of going bankrupt every year after winning the lottery go up 1% higher than the general population (because of geometrical progression, 1% is quite significant over time).
That's not to say people aren't "happier" to have inherited money (I won't argue people are less happy to have inherited money), but being happy, working hard, having a purpose in life, and making contributions to society are all orthogonal dimensions (being orthogonal does not make them exclusionary)...
2. People will, due to a lot of time, a need for work and that creativity humans are known for, create more stuff that only humans can create. One obvious area is art and personal services. We saw the shift from physical labor to factory labor when agricultural technology improved. We're now seeing the shift from factory labor to office and household labor due to manufacturing technology improvements. In the future, gadgets may be what food is like now: something only ~5% of the population needs to work on and is universally supplied to all. People will spend ~10% of their income on it just like they do clothes and the majority of spending will be on "touchy feely" objects like "artesian, infused craft beer".
Sadly, as many have found out, the future has not resulted in 15 minutes of fame, or long tail for people's creative outlet... Inter-connectivity of modern social networks only seem to amplify the hit-miss of creative outlets making the block busters bigger and the long tail languish in obscurity. We have morphed into a winner-take-all blockbuster society (not respective of the actual financial returns).
As a specific example, a 2006 study on the Rhapsody all-you-can-eat music services, the top 10% of tracks (of millions), got 76% of all plays, and the top 1% got 30% of all plays. On the bottom end, the growth of the number of tracks with no plays at all in a week is growing almost at the same rate as the number of tracks, but over time the zero plays/week tracks were growing at an exponential rate. On the studies that have examined the viability of the "long tail", the general conclusion is that only the people that have the interest/capacity/time to explore any catalog in-depth even venture to the tail. The sad fact is that populations that venture into the tail don't appear to grow at the same rate as the population and thus are not a fraction of the population, and not even a power function.
Maybe when we have a huge population of your so-called "dilettantes" that create an audience for creativity, but the sad truth may be that when we get there, we will find out that there just aren't many creative people out there, and we will still have blockbusters, and dust collectors.
I predict the extra time we have simply won't be for anything at all except for social bonding (e.g., BS-ing sessions, etc), as we simultaneously don't create, not consume any broad creative outlets of our fellow human beings because they are inferior to not really even novel. Maybe we can just concentrate walking on improving ourselves by retracing the footsteps of the illuminati of the past like star trek TNG claimed we will do (notice how they all play old classical music and read old books as part of their self-improvement process)...
Oh Great, a whole new Bathroom controversy as the Fury clans all want their own "non-human" bathrooms. Thanks Obama!
Nice try, they will of course be able to use the bathroom where they feel most comfortable... In the case of furries, perhaps they won't be comfortable in any bathroom and instead will be allowed to mark their own territory?
It isn't literalism (is that even a word?). At the end of the day,this is a function of special interest groups...
Interest groups that want to be "counted" pressure the government to not allow self identification and press for definitions that give them the most advantages. For example, if you are "pink" and by criteria "A" you are 3% of the population, but by criteria "B" you are 5% of the population, and the government is setting aside minority contracts (or affirmative action quotas) based on this number, you will lobby for criteria "B" even if it doesn't make any sense.
Before 1870, Asians in the United States Census** were categorized as "white" before the "chinese" category was introduced (japanese was added in 1890***). It wasn't all the way until 1980 a separate subcategory of Asian-Indian emerged (along with chinese, japanese, vietnamese, filipino, korean, other). Even adding all these "asian" categories together, you barely get to the magic 5% number where politicians start to pay attention.
To illustrate the importance numbers make, in 2000, a big controversy erupted when the new "multi-racial" option was proposed for the census (which threatened to bury the commonly held "one-drop rule" labeling that persisted since the horrible Jim Crow days) and nearly the entire Black congressional caucus opposed it...
** Not that the Census has any real "logic" when it came to including Mexican and Hindu as races *** along with the obsolete mulatto, quadroon and octoroon multi-racial categories
One might wonder how ultimately successful the civil rights movement would have been if the black panthers took the lead (vs the Martin Luther King Jr.'s non-violent civil disobedience approach). Although I think both elements are important, I doubt "militant movements" can generally succeed alone at organizing a movement on the scale necessary to move the needle w/o totally overthrowing the status quo (basically a coup d'etat) because they generally lack a way generate a big enough tent for people to join...
About the only "green" leader in the US that has emerged in recent memory that might have been able to move the needle was probably Al Gore, but in the end, even he was only the "establishment" side (e.g., the LBJ side of the LBJ-MLK formula). There was apparently no MLK equivalent on the green side. Contrast that with more recently Obama coordinating with Moveon.org (George Soros, and company) on Iraq-war policy.
I would argue the LBJ-MLK (insider/outsider) model is the real political model that folks that desire action on global climate change policy should look for. Unfortunately, I don't see the pieces of such a model and that probably explains the apparent lack of traction that has been observed...
It will only stick pedestrians. Not dirt, birds, cats, etc;-)
Or perma-graffiti (imagine interesting variations on lyft mustaches).
The only possible use of this would be to disincentivize people from throwing themselves in front of self driving cars near cross-walks and filing lawsuits...
If a self driving car transferred enough of its momentum to a pedestrian, I suspect the energy needed to be absorbed by the person to create a net inelastic collision would be pretty harsh, or the person's clothes might stick to the car but they won't be sufficiently attached to the body and the adhesive won't help much. On the other hand, if a pedestrian attempted to collide with a stationary car, the pedestrian would likely "stick" because the initial velocity of the pedestrian would be towards the car and the person can't generate enough momentum.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is that startups are communicating in the language that their customers (aka venture capitalists) understand.
Sadly, that isn't the language that their beta users (aka customers) understand...
Confusing, well, simply imagine the message you are trying to communicate is this... "blah, blah, blah, fear of missing out, yada, yada, yada..."
but CO2 is still a greenhouse gas and H2O is not).
With all due respect, H2O *is* a greenhouse gas. In fact water vapor is the MOST important greenhouse gas when it comes to climate. However, the so-called environmental-activists making all the noise know that we cannot do anything about water vapor so it is routinely ignored.
Luckily I live in a country where that is explicitly forbidden and all code automatically belongs to the creator (unless in a work contract).
I don't think the situation is different here than in your country. You can read the UCLA copyright policy...
According to UCLA policy, the copyright on Student work is owned by the Author if it was produced by a registered student without the use of University funds (other than Student Financial Aid), that is produced outside any University employment. Includes all coursework, term papers, theses and other work, as long as the student is not employed as a participant in a sponsored project where research results may be obligated to a third party.
Given that Professor Klug's research areas was Computational Biomechanics at UCLA, I would speculate that nobody forced him to sign rights to the professor, the lab nor the university. However, if there was sponsored research that was related to his thesis (apparently he was working on his thesis for 10 years someone was probably paying him something), perhaps there might have been some copyright ambiguity is some of his research was paid for by other companies (which is akin to a work contract). if this was the case, perhaps other researchers on the same research contract could presumably get access to the software that he wrote because it might have been allowed by the sponsor (even if the student didn't *like* it).
In addition, in California, an employer cannot simply force an employee to assign copyrights to software that they develop on their own time independent of employment. The employment law as it is written is here... If there was such an agreement, it would be void as it is unenforceable under California law.
Funny, whenever I have chili, I produce natural gas. I also give it away for free, by the way.
No, you may think that you are giving away for free, but others are paying/suffering for your generosity ;^)
When an environmentalist engineer says to an environmentalist politician that "This $100 million solar farm will be useless unless we also invest $500 million in energy storage and infrastructure" the response will always be "Why are you bashing solar cells? I'm firing you and replacing you with someone who cares about the environment." rather than "OK, I guess I'll have to find another $500 million in funding".
Then that environmentalist "politician" probably won't be able to produce that $100M in funding either.
I'm sure a *real* politician would immediately know that this whole thing is a $700M** solar farm project because *real* politicians have PR staffs that know when you are selling things, the ribbon makes the package...
If there is a solar construction company that wants to construct the $100M project designed by some environmentalist enginerd, I'm sure there's another construction company that would happily make a $500M energy storage and infrastructure project. I'm sure both tconstruction companies would love to cooperate to spread around enough grease to get other politicians on board. I find it amusing that enginerds (myself included) sometimes forget that it's the construction companies that the politicians are voting for, not the project....
**In government math, $100M+$500M = $700M because $100M needs to be spend on lobbying, administrative jobs, minority contracting, and job set-asides to other districts to get others on board and that money has to come from somewhere...
It's my understanding that "renewable" applies to energy sources that are continually replenished (over human timescales) and are *literally* renewable. The sun's energy is not being replenished as it burns, and so is not really "renewable".
The combustion of hydrogen could be considered renewable in this sense, because burning it creates water vapor, and you can extract hydrogen from water. Energy sources that depend on the hydrological cycle would be considered renewable because that process ensures that the supply remains steady, even while it may be continually being used.
Hydrogen is not "renewable energy" source. Hydrogen is effectively a "battery" as it stores energy in chemical form. You have to put in energy to extract hydrogen from water. You recover the energy when you burn hydrogen. If you burn it with oxygen and you recapture the resulting water back you can recycle to extract hydrogen from the water again.**
Renewable energy is really a code word for energy sources that are converted into commercially viable form from large energy sources on human timescales. On earth, the "large" sources are basically solar, geothermal, nuclear, inertial/gravitaional. PV, wind farm, hydro-electric, and petroleum are all basically "solar", the only difference is the conversion timescale which is what distinguishes renewable. Commercially viable petroleum doesn't get conversion from "solar" in human timescales and is not renewable.
**Theoretically, you could do the same with methane. You can put energy into making methane from CO2 and H2O (basically what some bacteria like Archaea do) and then recover then energy when you burn the methane. If you recapture the resulting CO2 and H2O, you can recycle to reform the methane. The main differences are that currently we don't recapture because it's "cheaper" to get new methane than to put energy into making methane, or similarly recapturing the water to resplit to extract hydrogen isn't as cheap as it is to make new hydrogen from methane.
Education is not the reason why Japan is experiencing a population growth freeze. Japanese means of production are incredibly female-unfriendly (I've been in Japan, I've seen it.) A woman gets the choice of either work or have babies. There is little infrastructure or services for affordable child care. Even with maternity leave, the system makes it impossible and costly for a married woman to go back to work.
This is very unlike other developed countries.
And yet in the USA, somehow we make that situation work: We let in immigrants... (at least for the time being)
Actually, the anecdotal reason I've heard is that many men in japan (and I've heard the same in other parts of asia as well) are considered by many asian women to be pretty much unmarriable resulting in about 1/3 of women over thirty are unmarried. The social and legal framework for women in marriage is so poor in these countries that many women who can afford it simply just stay single. The reasons given for men being unmarriable are diverse, but most are social (e.g., obsessed with childish things, not willing to assist in domestic chores, workaholics, stay out with work colleagues, etc.). And the way divorce laws are written mean that it's a big risk for the women (for apparently little perceived gain). I'm not sure it's as simple as it being an economics "means-of-production" issue. It's really more of a social issue.
Education is simply the enabler to give these women a choice, so the way I look at it in a way it is the reason for the population implosion.
CEOs (and other C-level types) are routinely insured for such legal fees (paid for by the company of course) so... no real risk to her. But you know, because they have no personal risk like that, and get a big payout if they turn out to be incompetent and get fired, is exactly why they deserve 8 figure salaries, right?
Oh... wait...
Actually, C-type are generally indemnified by the company, not independently insured. There is a difference.
Indemnification is that the company itself promises to pay for legal consul and any resulting judgments against for actions you take in the course of your job (save some fraudulent action on your part). The directors and officers insurance that the company purchases to cover this may or may not fully cover this liability in the case that the company fails**. The theory is that plaintiff lawyers generally won't sue for judgments they can't get (only so much blood from a turnip) so as long as the limit is high enough, plaintiffs will settle for the insurance limit.
Of course the employment contract with most C-types generally require the company to maintain a certain amount of "side A" coverage but with a unicorn company, buying enough to satisfy investors losses might be very expensive, so companies often buy some type of umbrella excess "side A" coverage supplement at a higher limit, but plaintiff lawyers can often bleed this umbrella coverage by lengthy corporate investigations and the person that is eventually sued can't do anything about it...
**Such policies are pretty complicated. The "side A" coverage in such a policy would pay the person in case the company can't pay the indemnity (e.g., goes BK), where "side B" would pay to the company if it needed to tap it to pay an indemnity but might be unavailable if the company was insolvent or under administration by a court.
Sharp has always tried do be 3/4 of the price and 1/2 the quality of Sony. I used to hate having to sell Sharp when I worked retail. So often I'd lose a customer for good.
AFAIK, Sony didn't make LCDs for their TVs, most of the panels are made by Sharp or Samsung (depending on the models). For the smaller Sony branded TVs, sony went with even cheaper taiwanese panel makers (e.g, CPT, AUO, CMO). Sony did augment their TVs with their own digital signal processing logic and LED back-lighting scheme, but I'm pretty sure panel was pretty much the same one in Sharp...
These parents can afford a Model X but they send their kids to public school in Chicago.
A Model X is over $100K and maybe lasts 5 years, where private school in Chicago can run you about the same (e.g., Montessori Academy of Chicago sets you back about $20K/year)... Of course the ability to spend money isn't the same as spending priorities. Hey if you can't afford both ;^)
Go figure - the quality of education can't be all that bad.
Whose education? What the parents received to make the choice or what the kids will receive in the school? ;^)
FWIW, I generally personally recommend public over private schools (even if it was affordable) except in extreme cases (e.g., genius kid, or massive gang infiltration)
Not in Europe. The US system is a failure and everywhere else is doing better science.
Well, I guess after about a decade, Europe is apparently jonesing become more like the US system again...
In 2007 the US, George Bush signed the bill that required all NIH funded research to be open access. This culminated efforts starting back in 2004 voluntarily open access publicly funded research in the NIH. The NIH is the world's largest non-military funding source of research. The law requires manuscripts must be put into PubMed Central *immediately* upon acceptance by a peer-reviewed journal (not after it's published).
It appears this new policy direction in the EU is basically following the US's lead in this area (and improving on it by requiring access to data as well)...
We welcome Europe to join this open-access system that is a "failure"...
ACARS transmits information. It's commonplace for positional data downlinked over ACARS to be the primary navigational system's position at the time the downlink is sent. Nowadays, that's typically a GPS position.
Are you sure that they use GPS positions? I thought nearly all ACARS position reports are made manually by current aircraft an thus are generally waypoints. The newer ADS-B are of course more automated and thus use GPS positions.
A far simpler solution is to simply have all planes continuously broadcast their GPS location whenever they go below a certain altitude or descend too quickly. Have them broadcast using a satellite phone system that covers the ENTIRE world - including the oceans, of course. Yes this would require some new satellites - but it is a global problem that the UN could easily solve with money.
What is the reason existing Iridium satellites, or geostationary communication satellites can't be used to provide a near continuous transmission of at least basic data (position, speed, etc.) at a modest update rate? I'd guess even if few kbs rate would be plenty.
Commercial aircraft *already* do broadcast pretty much continuously using ACARS...
The problem is twofold
1. Planes fly very high and go fast and they have wings which generate aerodynamic lift which result in a huge search area when something goes wrong and they stop sending these pings...
2. The ACARS system is very old and currently doesn't transmit GPS information and the location determined by a combination of radar and triangulation. The newer ADS-B system will remedy this as it adds tracking information, but is currently only being deployed now and does not exist in older aircraft.
In fact ADS-B is *already* planned to link with iridium satellites (with newer satellites to be launched in the next few years), but up-linking with geosync satelllite isn't very practical (because they are very far away, and they don't launch new ones very often)...
But of course /.-readers have the whole world figured out already, so maybe we can lobby scrap the ADS-B system and equip all new aircraft with USB sticks instead...
I think you're viewing "creative work" through a very narrow lens. Creative work isn't limited to creating music or art. Just about anything an algorithm would be bad at -- read: needs understanding of human emotions -- would fall under this category. This could be something as simple as wanting a human nanny instead of a robot one. Or wanting a waiter instead of a touchscreen.
And the very existence of "doggy hotels", "cuddle for hire", "personal yoga instructor" and a myriad of other jobs that could easily be automated but isn't indicates humans tend to have a preference for inventing things other humans may not need, but want and are willing to pay for.
The reality is that basic income is really just welfare in cash. The "fail" is that it doesn't take in consideration the premium costs of being in an economy vs being outside. Why is it that people move to cities even though there is a premium to be paid in cost of living? Ability to participate more fully in the economy. Outside this environment costs are lower, but you don't get to participate as much. Outside completely, costs are minimal, but you can never get in the game. Having a job is really like the tax you have to pay to play in the game (the ante so to speak). The bigger the game, the bigger the ante. Forcing the ante to be small (e.g. basic income) generally means there isn't enough action for the house (e.g., the govt).
This is why I like earned income credit better than basic income... It's still welfare, but instead of forcing down the ante, you subsidize the ante to get people in the real game... Unfortunately and EIC strategy might not work if there aren't *any* jobs to be had...
Frankly, it's usually the less mathematically astute individuals who are playing the lottery in the first place. I have nothing against people who play for fun, but if you are playing for a chance to get rich then you are mistaken.
Well, if I'm not mistaken, all people play the uterus lottery, and the winners get inheritances.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say most of the people that became wealthy didn't specifically seek it out as part of a mathematical formula and more often than not got wealthy as a side-effect of other motivations (sometimes "fun"). Thus there's no particular reason to the children of such people to be much different than people who win a traditional lottery.
Perhaps there's some slight argument than there's some *nature* argument that such children got "good-genes", or some *nurture* argument that the rich parents instill some magic "hard-working" values onto their offspring, but that effect is probably just on they margin (you could have "good-parents" and win a traditonal lottery). They still simply won a lottery that they were forced to play and being mathematically astute or not had nothing to do with choosing to be born (but maybe there was some "fun" in their parent's contributions to the endeavor)...
If you don't think inherited wealth ruins the rich...
Actually, I do think inherited wealth ruins the rich... I'm not aware of any specific studies, but I think many people share that fear.
On the high-profile side (e.g., Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Sting), many have publicly shared that they have a strong desire not make their kids into trustafarians... As another data point, Merrill Lynch Wealth Management indicated that 2/3rds of the people setting up trusts have indicated their concern about the negative impact of passing on wealth to their children...
Then there's the well known issues with lottery winners. This group is well studied (mostly because usually winners are public record). In one study, 70% of Florida lottery winners were bankrupt within 5 years. Apparently, overall, your odds of going bankrupt every year after winning the lottery go up 1% higher than the general population (because of geometrical progression, 1% is quite significant over time).
That's not to say people aren't "happier" to have inherited money (I won't argue people are less happy to have inherited money), but being happy, working hard, having a purpose in life, and making contributions to society are all orthogonal dimensions (being orthogonal does not make them exclusionary)...
2. People will, due to a lot of time, a need for work and that creativity humans are known for, create more stuff that only humans can create. One obvious area is art and personal services. We saw the shift from physical labor to factory labor when agricultural technology improved. We're now seeing the shift from factory labor to office and household labor due to manufacturing technology improvements. In the future, gadgets may be what food is like now: something only ~5% of the population needs to work on and is universally supplied to all. People will spend ~10% of their income on it just like they do clothes and the majority of spending will be on "touchy feely" objects like "artesian, infused craft beer".
Sadly, as many have found out, the future has not resulted in 15 minutes of fame, or long tail for people's creative outlet... Inter-connectivity of modern social networks only seem to amplify the hit-miss of creative outlets making the block busters bigger and the long tail languish in obscurity. We have morphed into a winner-take-all blockbuster society (not respective of the actual financial returns).
As a specific example, a 2006 study on the Rhapsody all-you-can-eat music services, the top 10% of tracks (of millions), got 76% of all plays, and the top 1% got 30% of all plays. On the bottom end, the growth of the number of tracks with no plays at all in a week is growing almost at the same rate as the number of tracks, but over time the zero plays/week tracks were growing at an exponential rate. On the studies that have examined the viability of the "long tail", the general conclusion is that only the people that have the interest/capacity/time to explore any catalog in-depth even venture to the tail. The sad fact is that populations that venture into the tail don't appear to grow at the same rate as the population and thus are not a fraction of the population, and not even a power function.
Maybe when we have a huge population of your so-called "dilettantes" that create an audience for creativity, but the sad truth may be that when we get there, we will find out that there just aren't many creative people out there, and we will still have blockbusters, and dust collectors.
I predict the extra time we have simply won't be for anything at all except for social bonding (e.g., BS-ing sessions, etc), as we simultaneously don't create, not consume any broad creative outlets of our fellow human beings because they are inferior to not really even novel. Maybe we can just concentrate walking on improving ourselves by retracing the footsteps of the illuminati of the past like star trek TNG claimed we will do (notice how they all play old classical music and read old books as part of their self-improvement process)...
Welcome to the future, reliving the past...
Oh Great, a whole new Bathroom controversy as the Fury clans all want their own "non-human" bathrooms. Thanks Obama!
Nice try, they will of course be able to use the bathroom where they feel most comfortable...
In the case of furries, perhaps they won't be comfortable in any bathroom and instead will be allowed to mark their own territory?
I think that is the sound you are looking for...
Sick and injured humans will be identified using thermal and vision sensors that detect changes in body temperature
Since the SARS outbreak back in early 2002, they already do this in airports... Why not animals?
Doesn't matter; you have ten seconds to comply.
Actually "twenty seconds to comply". Your geek card is hereby revoked...
Well, that's one wristband you better remember to take off before you go on a date...
It isn't literalism (is that even a word?). At the end of the day,this is a function of special interest groups...
Interest groups that want to be "counted" pressure the government to not allow self identification and press for definitions that give them the most advantages. For example, if you are "pink" and by criteria "A" you are 3% of the population, but by criteria "B" you are 5% of the population, and the government is setting aside minority contracts (or affirmative action quotas) based on this number, you will lobby for criteria "B" even if it doesn't make any sense.
Before 1870, Asians in the United States Census** were categorized as "white" before the "chinese" category was introduced (japanese was added in 1890***). It wasn't all the way until 1980 a separate subcategory of Asian-Indian emerged (along with chinese, japanese, vietnamese, filipino, korean, other). Even adding all these "asian" categories together, you barely get to the magic 5% number where politicians start to pay attention.
To illustrate the importance numbers make, in 2000, a big controversy erupted when the new "multi-racial" option was proposed for the census (which threatened to bury the commonly held "one-drop rule" labeling that persisted since the horrible Jim Crow days) and nearly the entire Black congressional caucus opposed it...
** Not that the Census has any real "logic" when it came to including Mexican and Hindu as races
*** along with the obsolete mulatto, quadroon and octoroon multi-racial categories
One might wonder how ultimately successful the civil rights movement would have been if the black panthers took the lead (vs the Martin Luther King Jr.'s non-violent civil disobedience approach). Although I think both elements are important, I doubt "militant movements" can generally succeed alone at organizing a movement on the scale necessary to move the needle w/o totally overthrowing the status quo (basically a coup d'etat) because they generally lack a way generate a big enough tent for people to join...
About the only "green" leader in the US that has emerged in recent memory that might have been able to move the needle was probably Al Gore, but in the end, even he was only the "establishment" side (e.g., the LBJ side of the LBJ-MLK formula). There was apparently no MLK equivalent on the green side. Contrast that with more recently Obama coordinating with Moveon.org (George Soros, and company) on Iraq-war policy.
I would argue the LBJ-MLK (insider/outsider) model is the real political model that folks that desire action on global climate change policy should look for. Unfortunately, I don't see the pieces of such a model and that probably explains the apparent lack of traction that has been observed...
It will only stick pedestrians. Not dirt, birds, cats, etc ;-)
Or perma-graffiti (imagine interesting variations on lyft mustaches).
The only possible use of this would be to disincentivize people from throwing themselves in front of self driving cars near cross-walks and filing lawsuits...
If a self driving car transferred enough of its momentum to a pedestrian, I suspect the energy needed to be absorbed by the person to create a net inelastic collision would be pretty harsh, or the person's clothes might stick to the car but they won't be sufficiently attached to the body and the adhesive won't help much. On the other hand, if a pedestrian attempted to collide with a stationary car, the pedestrian would likely "stick" because the initial velocity of the pedestrian would be towards the car and the person can't generate enough momentum.