Some would argue that religion (blind faith in an untestable hypothesis) is in itself a mental health issue...
But that too is my big question with this study. Without correcting for the likelihood of a religious vs non-religious person experiencing these issues in the first place, it's hard to say if being religious is actually a net benefit or detractor in this case. There are however relevant studies that equate higher levels of religion with lower levels of education, and with lower income levels, not to mention the fact that criminals are more likely to be religious than the general population, and given that all of those groups also have higher levels of mental health issues, there is certainly an argument to be made.
I'd say at the least, further research would be needed.
This was actually my thought. They tested people who were already depressed, to see if the religious fared better. But I don't see any corrections done for likelihood or a religious, vs a non-religious person becoming depressed in the first place.
The good thing about TOR is that anyone can use it, and your traffic can come from the same node as someone else, so you can't identify people based on IP The bad thing about TOR is that anyone can use it, and your traffic can come from the same node as someone else, so when someone else does something stupid, you pay the price of the ban...
Of course it's interesting that you see "BANNED" where as my work IP just get's an error saying that I'm "not allowed to use this resource" when I try to post a comment... I had always figured that what I saw at work was Slashdot's ban method, apparently it's something completely different.
The issue wasn't that you are sending a plane for one item, but that a plane load of items is much less efficient than a ship load of items. and many of the items on the plane are in a similar situation, if more was shipped by sea than by air you'd need fewer planes making the regular runs.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, only pointing out that it's a much more complex calculation than your initial post made it sound. so complicated in fact that I doubt anyone has really done a complete calculation of it.
Government intervention in this case is socialism, not capitalism.
Whether for, or against, is irrelevant, but if we are arguing these things let's make sure we use the correct terms. It could be argued that without the socialist handouts that these people would starve and that should be avoided, (the socialist solution) or it could be argued that without those socialist handouts the people would not accept the lower wages and wages would go up as people refused to work at the lower wages (the capitalist solution)
In this post I will not advocate for one solution over the other, however we do ourselves an extreme disservice if we do not even recognize which is which.
Government regulation and services are by definition the opposite of free market capitalism. That doesn't make them good or bad, it simply is something one should keep in mind when advocating on either side of the issue.
If you think we need more capitalism and less socialism, don't advocate for more government interference. If you think we need less capitalism and more socialism, don't advocate for less government interference.
Considering that taxes officially apply even to barter transactions (not that anyone ever declares them), and especially considering that there was another recent article on here talking about how bitcoin is now subject to many of the same regulations as normal currency (like reporting transactions over a set dollar threshold) then yes. this does.
Of course some currencies and transactions are easier to hide than others, but that doesn't make it legal, only likely.
While I mostly agree with you, it's not quite that simple, and calculating the net environmental impact would be in fact a monstrous task.
When I order a widget from some guy in china, and he ships it to me directly, it will generally go air mail, if I go to the local walmart and buy the widget, it probably came in a container of widgets by sea and by train. both of which are far more efficient shipping methods than air. for the local part of the delivery you are correct, the UPS truck is probably more efficient than everyone driving to the store (not to mention the impact of having the store in the first place) however once you factor in the long haul shipping piecemeal instead of bulk and air instead of surface, it becomes less certain. And of course even the local part can't be certain because it varies on many factors, if the person is driving past the store anyway on their way home from work or whatnot, the environmental impact of stopping in to buy something is likely far less than the delivery truck making a special trip to their house. There are simply so many factors at play here.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, only pointing out that it isn't really perfectly clear in either case.
All taxes are THEFT and are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as are the parts of the constitution that authorize UNCONSTITUTIONAL taxes.
(emphasis changed)
I'm having a hard time figuring out how a part of the constitution can be unconstitutional. (Not being from the USA I can't tell you every line of your constitution, but that sentence simply doesn't parse)
ok, I'm sure the terrorists just want everyone to be happy...
Let's face it, terrorists want to make life miserable, that's the whole point. They probably don't even care about HOW life gets worse for people, as long as it does.
Why they hate is irrelevant, They may not hate freedom, but that doesn't mean they don't want to remove it as a punishment.
If someone steals from me, I don't hate them for their freedom, I hate them for the theft. That doesn't mean I don't want their freedom taken away as a punishment.
Depends what his goal was. If it was to terrorize millions of people, and shut down an entire city for several days, I'd say he's exceeded all expectations.
If his goal was to cause even more fear and rights errosion in the USA, he's likely suceeded there too.
The current political environment in the USA makes terrorism (as in sewing fear and terror in the population) extremely easy. Do something minor and the repurcusions are huge.
At their absolute best, the elected representatives represent their constituents, which is no better than a direct democracy. Most of the time they don't even do that, instead focussing on their own self interest instead. The theory you talk about is good, but I have never seen it happen in practice.
I said "the computer won't try" You read "the computer will explode in a firey fireball of firebalness." Got it. It's not that you are maliciously playing devils advocate, you are actually as dumb as you appear. I never said anything that implies the computer would block the user from doing anything. You just don't understand English. The computer won't proceed (the computer will cease self driving) when "confused". Leaving the "driver" to drive if he so chooses. I've never said anything contrary to that, and anything you've inferred contrary to that, it was your error.
So which is it? will the car drive through the snowbank accross the road, or will it swerve off the road to follow it? or will it simplyu come to a complete stop in the middle of a high speed roadway?
Sure the driver could take over, I'm sure they can go from reading a book or napping to full control of the vehicle in under 5 seconds with no further advance warning and be fully competent knowing exactly what's happening around them.
What other handover method is possible on a high speed roadway when the vehicle is suddenly unsure of what to do?
I advocate a solution where we don't let cars drive for us until they come up with the ability to drive in common inclement conditions (water on road, road obscured by snow, etc)
You are asserting they haven't solved that now. Have you seen anything that indicates it isn't solved, or are you just presuming it isn't? I've seen assertions that it was solved, though maybe for "common" situations,
Perfect. Please provide some of those links that show that self driving cars can drive in some of the common inclement weather situations we have discussed here.
not all possible ones, they aren't too explicit when hinting at limitations, probably because of the negative idiots like you that assert they don't work, when you have no knowledge to back up that assertion.
And that's exactly my point. "all possible ones" MUST be handled. they currently are by normal drivers, sure sometimes there are better solutions than those chosen by your average driver, but none of them currently involve asking someone else to take over with no warning.
And you can skip the name calling. I'm trying to have a proper discussion here. If you want to prove me wrong, show me a link to better information, calling me names doesn't advance your position.
Your quote doesn't mention detecting lane markings at all. It talks about mapping obstacles. something I have already stated I believe these cars are very good at. what I don't trust them to do is be able to see through snow. and I also don't trust their "guess" as to where the lane "should" be. something humans are actually very good at. Radar can't see lane markings. Lasers may or may not be able to, but probably can't do it through snow.
So once again. Please provide some citation that proves that these vehicles can do this basic task that is done by human drivers on a regular basis all winter long.
I have also never seen any indication that any of these vehicles have been sent out in the weather conditions that I'm talking about.
Computers are GREAT at following rules. they are LOUSY at interpretation. I wouldn't trust my life to anything with the sorts of accuracy for interpretation that we get from OCR software, or voice recognition, I fail to see how interpretation of lane markings, soft shoulders, and obscured roads is supposed to be any easier of a task.
I don't have to "estimate" the average driver. there are lots of statistics to back that one up, and as horrid as they are, once you count for the number of vehicles on the road, they are actually amazingly good.
Also, there is no need for personal attacks here, I always find it telling when people don't think they can make their point without them.
Considering how horribly the US has been running it so far, It wouldn't likely be worse. At least at the UN the USA isn't the only country with a veto, Right now the USA can screw it up without any oversight (and have on many occasions). At the UN the USA would still need to want to screw it up, but they could no longer do it on their own, they'd ALSO need to convince the other veto power nations.
There's really zero downside to this compared to the current situation.
Of course a better solution would be a new internet that NO country can mess up... but that's really just a pipe dream at this point.
So you advocate stopping and not continuing to drive in a situation that happens several times a week through a large portion of the year in some locations.
;Note the "AK" in my name. That's "Alaska". A "blizzard" is a term reserved for white-out conditions. 3 feet of snow in 24 hours was "a heavy snow" though I would concede that the panickers in New England would assert a "blizzard" every time there's any snow at all.
So you'll have to define where people experience whte-out conditions several times a week for months at a time. It doesn't happen in Alaska or the northern midwest, but I've never experienced a New England winter (just a few days visiting friends over Christmas once, but it was a dry cold). So maybe they get weather patterns significantly different from what the news reports (where they claim "blizzard" when you can see across the street clearly).
Try the Canadian prairies. It doesn't take much snow to cause whiteout conditions, and even less to completely obscure all road markings, all it takes is a bit of wind. Worse yet, the snow forms all sorts of weird patterns as it settles on the road and can imitate any form of road marking to a computer with limited pattern recognition. I'm not even all that worried about a car that decides it doesn't know what to do and lets me drive instead, but I'm petrified of one that misinterprets a snow drift for a road marking and follows it in to oncoming traffic.
Not to mention, self driving cars use inputs not available to humans (radar, laser ranging/LIDAR, etc).
As they say on some sites... [citation needed] I have never seen anything to indicate that road markings are detected any way other than visually on these vehicles.
You are just an idiot. Why are you assuming that if a self-driving car pulls over and stops, announcing "conditions too unsafe to continue" that the human can't take the wheel and continue at their own peril? You are assuming a worst-case scenario that hasn't even been proposed (a self-driving car with no manual driving option). So yes, your strawman is correct. If you make a self driving car with no wheels and no engine, it will suck. There, happy? Why even reply to these when you don't even have the most basic idea of what a self-driving car is?
No need for name calling. It is you who claim to know everything about self driving cars, not I. Currently there are ZERO commercially available self driving cars, and an extremely limited number of test vehicles with even less information about them being leaked to the public. I do not for one minute believe that you know enough about the subject to categorically state that these vehicles can handle all known (and worse yet, the unknown) situations in a safe manner.
I honestly believe self driving cars are the future. I just don't believe for a second that any current generation computer system could handle driving as well as even the average driver.
When the computer can't determine enough to "know" it's safe, it won't try
You advocate a situation where a lack of 100% certainty causes a vehicle to stop and do nothing.
I advocate a solution where we don't let cars drive for us until they come up with the ability to drive in common inclement conditions (water on road, road obscured by snow, etc)
Actually the UN would be perfect. When was the last time they actually accomplished anything? Pretty much every motion they ever make is vetoed. It's perfect, put the Internet under the control of an entity so dysfunctional that they simply can't get their act together to mess it up.
I would trust the UN over the USA to run the internet any day.
So you advocate preventing humans from getting where they need to go, not because it is impossible, or unsafe to get there, but because the computer can't figure it out.
Not acceptable.
Self driving cars are the future. I am fully willing to admit that. I'm also saying that we simply don't have the technology right now to do it right.
So you advocate stopping and not continuing to drive in a situation that happens several times a week through a large portion of the year in some locations.
Not acceptable. I continue driving in those cases, I have somewhere to be. I can interpret where I need to be on the road, but I have seen nothing to indicate that any current computer system is capable of such a routine task.
I'm not saying self driving cars will never happen. I'm just saying that they are not anywhere near where they need to be to replace even the average driver.
In case that's a genuine question, cattle gates, also known as cattle guards or texas gates, are essentially a grate embedded in the roadway, covering the entire width of the roadway from the fence on one side, to the fence on the other, beneath the gate is empty space, and the gate itself is made up of metal bars about 4 inches across that run the width of the road with gaps of about 4 inches or so between them. The result is something that a car can drive over with no difficulty, but that livestock refuse to cross (they probably could walk across safely, but they really don't like the look of them) This allows a road to pass through a field with no risk of the cows escaping, while not requiring fencing the length of the road on both sides.
Extremely common anywhere where a lot of ranching is practised.
Problem is, if there is ANY situation they haven't thought of (and despite them being extremely bright people, there is bound to be at least one) someone WILL find that situation. Then the question becomes how the vehicle ends up handling it.
I think self driving cars are the future. I don't for a minute believe we currently have the level of technology available to do it right.
Slashdot Mirror
Some would argue that religion (blind faith in an untestable hypothesis) is in itself a mental health issue...
But that too is my big question with this study. Without correcting for the likelihood of a religious vs non-religious person experiencing these issues in the first place, it's hard to say if being religious is actually a net benefit or detractor in this case.
There are however relevant studies that equate higher levels of religion with lower levels of education, and with lower income levels, not to mention the fact that criminals are more likely to be religious than the general population, and given that all of those groups also have higher levels of mental health issues, there is certainly an argument to be made.
I'd say at the least, further research would be needed.
This was actually my thought. They tested people who were already depressed, to see if the religious fared better. But I don't see any corrections done for likelihood or a religious, vs a non-religious person becoming depressed in the first place.
The good thing about TOR is that anyone can use it, and your traffic can come from the same node as someone else, so you can't identify people based on IP
The bad thing about TOR is that anyone can use it, and your traffic can come from the same node as someone else, so when someone else does something stupid, you pay the price of the ban...
Of course it's interesting that you see "BANNED" where as my work IP just get's an error saying that I'm "not allowed to use this resource" when I try to post a comment... I had always figured that what I saw at work was Slashdot's ban method, apparently it's something completely different.
The issue wasn't that you are sending a plane for one item, but that a plane load of items is much less efficient than a ship load of items. and many of the items on the plane are in a similar situation, if more was shipped by sea than by air you'd need fewer planes making the regular runs.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, only pointing out that it's a much more complex calculation than your initial post made it sound. so complicated in fact that I doubt anyone has really done a complete calculation of it.
Government intervention in this case is socialism, not capitalism.
Whether for, or against, is irrelevant, but if we are arguing these things let's make sure we use the correct terms. It could be argued that without the socialist handouts that these people would starve and that should be avoided, (the socialist solution) or it could be argued that without those socialist handouts the people would not accept the lower wages and wages would go up as people refused to work at the lower wages (the capitalist solution)
In this post I will not advocate for one solution over the other, however we do ourselves an extreme disservice if we do not even recognize which is which.
Government regulation and services are by definition the opposite of free market capitalism. That doesn't make them good or bad, it simply is something one should keep in mind when advocating on either side of the issue.
If you think we need more capitalism and less socialism, don't advocate for more government interference.
If you think we need less capitalism and more socialism, don't advocate for less government interference.
Considering that taxes officially apply even to barter transactions (not that anyone ever declares them), and especially considering that there was another recent article on here talking about how bitcoin is now subject to many of the same regulations as normal currency (like reporting transactions over a set dollar threshold) then yes. this does.
Of course some currencies and transactions are easier to hide than others, but that doesn't make it legal, only likely.
While I mostly agree with you, it's not quite that simple, and calculating the net environmental impact would be in fact a monstrous task.
When I order a widget from some guy in china, and he ships it to me directly, it will generally go air mail, if I go to the local walmart and buy the widget, it probably came in a container of widgets by sea and by train. both of which are far more efficient shipping methods than air. for the local part of the delivery you are correct, the UPS truck is probably more efficient than everyone driving to the store (not to mention the impact of having the store in the first place) however once you factor in the long haul shipping piecemeal instead of bulk and air instead of surface, it becomes less certain. And of course even the local part can't be certain because it varies on many factors, if the person is driving past the store anyway on their way home from work or whatnot, the environmental impact of stopping in to buy something is likely far less than the delivery truck making a special trip to their house. There are simply so many factors at play here.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, only pointing out that it isn't really perfectly clear in either case.
All taxes are THEFT and are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as are the parts of the constitution that authorize UNCONSTITUTIONAL taxes.
(emphasis changed)
I'm having a hard time figuring out how a part of the constitution can be unconstitutional. (Not being from the USA I can't tell you every line of your constitution, but that sentence simply doesn't parse)
What part of the government picking up the slack is capitalism?
ok, I'm sure the terrorists just want everyone to be happy...
Let's face it, terrorists want to make life miserable, that's the whole point. They probably don't even care about HOW life gets worse for people, as long as it does.
Why they hate is irrelevant, They may not hate freedom, but that doesn't mean they don't want to remove it as a punishment.
If someone steals from me, I don't hate them for their freedom, I hate them for the theft. That doesn't mean I don't want their freedom taken away as a punishment.
Depends what his goal was. If it was to terrorize millions of people, and shut down an entire city for several days, I'd say he's exceeded all expectations.
If his goal was to cause even more fear and rights errosion in the USA, he's likely suceeded there too.
The current political environment in the USA makes terrorism (as in sewing fear and terror in the population) extremely easy. Do something minor and the repurcusions are huge.
And how's that working out for you?
At their absolute best, the elected representatives represent their constituents, which is no better than a direct democracy. Most of the time they don't even do that, instead focussing on their own self interest instead. The theory you talk about is good, but I have never seen it happen in practice.
I said "the computer won't try" You read "the computer will explode in a firey fireball of firebalness." Got it. It's not that you are maliciously playing devils advocate, you are actually as dumb as you appear. I never said anything that implies the computer would block the user from doing anything. You just don't understand English. The computer won't proceed (the computer will cease self driving) when "confused". Leaving the "driver" to drive if he so chooses. I've never said anything contrary to that, and anything you've inferred contrary to that, it was your error.
So which is it? will the car drive through the snowbank accross the road, or will it swerve off the road to follow it? or will it simplyu come to a complete stop in the middle of a high speed roadway?
Sure the driver could take over, I'm sure they can go from reading a book or napping to full control of the vehicle in under 5 seconds with no further advance warning and be fully competent knowing exactly what's happening around them.
What other handover method is possible on a high speed roadway when the vehicle is suddenly unsure of what to do?
I advocate a solution where we don't let cars drive for us until they come up with the ability to drive in common inclement conditions (water on road, road obscured by snow, etc)
You are asserting they haven't solved that now. Have you seen anything that indicates it isn't solved, or are you just presuming it isn't? I've seen assertions that it was solved, though maybe for "common" situations,
Perfect. Please provide some of those links that show that self driving cars can drive in some of the common inclement weather situations we have discussed here.
not all possible ones, they aren't too explicit when hinting at limitations, probably because of the negative idiots like you that assert they don't work, when you have no knowledge to back up that assertion.
And that's exactly my point. "all possible ones" MUST be handled. they currently are by normal drivers, sure sometimes there are better solutions than those chosen by your average driver, but none of them currently involve asking someone else to take over with no warning.
And you can skip the name calling. I'm trying to have a proper discussion here. If you want to prove me wrong, show me a link to better information, calling me names doesn't advance your position.
Your quote doesn't mention detecting lane markings at all. It talks about mapping obstacles. something I have already stated I believe these cars are very good at. what I don't trust them to do is be able to see through snow. and I also don't trust their "guess" as to where the lane "should" be. something humans are actually very good at. Radar can't see lane markings. Lasers may or may not be able to, but probably can't do it through snow.
So once again. Please provide some citation that proves that these vehicles can do this basic task that is done by human drivers on a regular basis all winter long.
I have also never seen any indication that any of these vehicles have been sent out in the weather conditions that I'm talking about.
Computers are GREAT at following rules. they are LOUSY at interpretation. I wouldn't trust my life to anything with the sorts of accuracy for interpretation that we get from OCR software, or voice recognition, I fail to see how interpretation of lane markings, soft shoulders, and obscured roads is supposed to be any easier of a task.
I don't have to "estimate" the average driver. there are lots of statistics to back that one up, and as horrid as they are, once you count for the number of vehicles on the road, they are actually amazingly good.
Also, there is no need for personal attacks here, I always find it telling when people don't think they can make their point without them.
1 person?
We now have the technology to do that. Why not?
But it's "On a computer" it's COMPLETELY different!!!! (or at least that's what the government has been telling everyone for the past 20 years...)
Considering how horribly the US has been running it so far, It wouldn't likely be worse. At least at the UN the USA isn't the only country with a veto, Right now the USA can screw it up without any oversight (and have on many occasions). At the UN the USA would still need to want to screw it up, but they could no longer do it on their own, they'd ALSO need to convince the other veto power nations.
There's really zero downside to this compared to the current situation.
Of course a better solution would be a new internet that NO country can mess up... but that's really just a pipe dream at this point.
So you advocate stopping and not continuing to drive in a situation that happens several times a week through a large portion of the year in some locations.
;Note the "AK" in my name. That's "Alaska". A "blizzard" is a term reserved for white-out conditions. 3 feet of snow in 24 hours was "a heavy snow" though I would concede that the panickers in New England would assert a "blizzard" every time there's any snow at all.
So you'll have to define where people experience whte-out conditions several times a week for months at a time. It doesn't happen in Alaska or the northern midwest, but I've never experienced a New England winter (just a few days visiting friends over Christmas once, but it was a dry cold). So maybe they get weather patterns significantly different from what the news reports (where they claim "blizzard" when you can see across the street clearly).
Try the Canadian prairies. It doesn't take much snow to cause whiteout conditions, and even less to completely obscure all road markings, all it takes is a bit of wind.
Worse yet, the snow forms all sorts of weird patterns as it settles on the road and can imitate any form of road marking to a computer with limited pattern recognition.
I'm not even all that worried about a car that decides it doesn't know what to do and lets me drive instead, but I'm petrified of one that misinterprets a snow drift for a road marking and follows it in to oncoming traffic.
Not to mention, self driving cars use inputs not available to humans (radar, laser ranging/LIDAR, etc).
As they say on some sites... [citation needed] I have never seen anything to indicate that road markings are detected any way other than visually on these vehicles.
You are just an idiot. Why are you assuming that if a self-driving car pulls over and stops, announcing "conditions too unsafe to continue" that the human can't take the wheel and continue at their own peril? You are assuming a worst-case scenario that hasn't even been proposed (a self-driving car with no manual driving option). So yes, your strawman is correct. If you make a self driving car with no wheels and no engine, it will suck. There, happy? Why even reply to these when you don't even have the most basic idea of what a self-driving car is?
No need for name calling. It is you who claim to know everything about self driving cars, not I. Currently there are ZERO commercially available self driving cars, and an extremely limited number of test vehicles with even less information about them being leaked to the public. I do not for one minute believe that you know enough about the subject to categorically state that these vehicles can handle all known (and worse yet, the unknown) situations in a safe manner.
I honestly believe self driving cars are the future. I just don't believe for a second that any current generation computer system could handle driving as well as even the average driver.
When the computer can't determine enough to "know" it's safe, it won't try
You advocate a situation where a lack of 100% certainty causes a vehicle to stop and do nothing.
I advocate a solution where we don't let cars drive for us until they come up with the ability to drive in common inclement conditions (water on road, road obscured by snow, etc)
Actually the UN would be perfect. When was the last time they actually accomplished anything? Pretty much every motion they ever make is vetoed. It's perfect, put the Internet under the control of an entity so dysfunctional that they simply can't get their act together to mess it up.
I would trust the UN over the USA to run the internet any day.
So you advocate preventing humans from getting where they need to go, not because it is impossible, or unsafe to get there, but because the computer can't figure it out.
Not acceptable.
Self driving cars are the future. I am fully willing to admit that. I'm also saying that we simply don't have the technology right now to do it right.
So you advocate stopping and not continuing to drive in a situation that happens several times a week through a large portion of the year in some locations.
Not acceptable. I continue driving in those cases, I have somewhere to be. I can interpret where I need to be on the road, but I have seen nothing to indicate that any current computer system is capable of such a routine task.
I'm not saying self driving cars will never happen. I'm just saying that they are not anywhere near where they need to be to replace even the average driver.
In case that's a genuine question, cattle gates, also known as cattle guards or texas gates, are essentially a grate embedded in the roadway, covering the entire width of the roadway from the fence on one side, to the fence on the other, beneath the gate is empty space, and the gate itself is made up of metal bars about 4 inches across that run the width of the road with gaps of about 4 inches or so between them.
The result is something that a car can drive over with no difficulty, but that livestock refuse to cross (they probably could walk across safely, but they really don't like the look of them)
This allows a road to pass through a field with no risk of the cows escaping, while not requiring fencing the length of the road on both sides.
Extremely common anywhere where a lot of ranching is practised.
Problem is, if there is ANY situation they haven't thought of (and despite them being extremely bright people, there is bound to be at least one) someone WILL find that situation. Then the question becomes how the vehicle ends up handling it.
I think self driving cars are the future. I don't for a minute believe we currently have the level of technology available to do it right.