But arguably that could cause salaries to rise as well, as programmers become more productive more software will be demanded.
Let's imagine that programmers become twice as productive. The simplistic way of looking at things is that half the programmers will have to lose their jobs. But imagine you had a programming project that would be worth $750K to you if it were done, but will cost you a cool million to finish. That project is currently creating zero programming jobs. But in our programmers-are-twice-as-productive scenario it would cost only $500K to develop, so you'd hire more programmers.
More AI programming would, in my opinion, shape the skillsets programmers need more than it will reduce the need for programmers. Ultimately the limiting factor in communication between two parties is their shared understanding. We are a long, long way from having AIs that share enough experience with people to interpret humans' contradictory needs. That means we'll be feeding AI "programmers" really, really precise specifications that encapsulate our human understanding of human needs.
Speaking as someone who's live in New England for almost 60 years now, for most of my life there was one regular pattern you could count on each winter: bitter, very dry cold would settle in in late December, followed by a slight rise in temperature in early February that would bring the first real snow of the season. The snow would get heavier and wetter as winter drew to a close.
You need two things for snow: sub-freezing temperatures AND water in the air. The 5F - 20F temperatures we had in January were plenty cold enough for snow, but the air was bone dry. The January skies were a deep, startling blue, often without a single wisp of cloud to be seen. The lack of water was also a contributor to the cold. Days with snow are almost always warmer because the clouds trap heat that would radiate into space. It's desert nights out west where the temperatures plunge fifty degrees after sundown.
You should be aware that even in global warming scenarios where the planet on average is several degrees warmer it'll still get cold enough for snow to fall out of the sky in most places where snow has historically been common. What you'll have a slight tendency to have less snow in many places due to temperature that's offset by a lot more water going into the atmosphere. Many places may see lots more snow.
In many high temperate regions you'll also see more frequent cold snaps. Global warming doesn't mean the climate gets warmer every day of every year; it means there are more total joules of thermal energy in the atmosphere. Since we're talking about a giant rotating ball of fluid which is exchanging heat with the surface and space what you get is much more complicated stuff happening.
I didn't say it was nothing; I'm saying it was a big deal -- so big it began the transformation society. Or are you saying that the Black Death changed nothing because it was a catastrophe?
I can give another example of a catastrophe that is commonly held up as a textbook example of a good thing: the enclosure movement. Yes, it's good for us that the enclosure movement happened, but it was a catastrophe for most people at the time. It was an expropriation of economic interests held by the majority of people in the land for the benefit of the aristocracy that controlled parliament. The forcible expropriation of something valuable with neither consent or compensation would be regarded by most reasonable people as theft.
The whole point of universal suffrage is to prevent catastrophe being foisted on people who don't have a say in government. You could still have an enclosure movement if the people being kicked off the commons had a say, but you'd have to offer them compensation -- say by turning the manor into a corporation and giving them preferred stock shares.
*has* taken the Netherlands government this long to do this. The article isn't even about America, and neither is the comment you replied to (at least not stated).
The Dutch court ruled according to Dutch and EU law. They didn't make up new law, just ruled on how pre-existing law applied. There is no corresponding framework in the US law, other than the "Bill of Rights Penumbra" logic used in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, which struck down anti-birth control laws. However that is a much weaker privacy framework in that it does not apply to private entities like employers, only to US and state government intrusions on individual liberties.
So yes, I have thought about this, particularly from an American perspective as I am an American. I realize not all readers of this site are Americans, but many are.
Yeah but copyright law is not concerned with literary theory. So far as I know the notion that characters are copyrightable isn't written into any statutes. It certainly isn't written into the US Constitutional grant of copyright establishment powers to Congress. It's a matter of case law distinguishing between things like characters that are unique enough to copyright and things like themes which are universal enough to be impossible to copyright.
So if a judge decides that the same reasoning that says characters like Bruce Wayne are copyrightable applies to the car he drives, from the point of view of the law the car functions as a character even though from a literary standpoint it's just set-dressing.
It hasn't taken governments so long; there are other governments who do have stronger privacy protections (e.g., the Netherlands). It's American voters who are the problem.
American voters have all been taught about the American Revolution in a special, narrow way that primes us to conceive of tyranny as something that comes exclusively from governments. We've forgotten about the tyranny that come from allowing an aristocracy to exercise overwhelming power. That's what government was in most places in the world prior to the 1700s: minorities of powerful individuals who advanced their mutual interests by imposing their collective will on the majority and calling it government by traditional or god-given right.
The single most important event in the history of Western liberty was the Black Death. A medieval peasant couldn't take his labor elsewhere if he was unsatisfied with conditions on the manor; the landlords were effectively an agricultural cartel. But with nearly the entire work force exterminated by plague in many areas, labor prices rose. It became feasible for a peasant to take his labor elsewhere to sell -- if he wasn't caught and forced back onto the manor. The Black Death was the first crack in the aristocratic monopsony hold upon the labor market. That's why serfdom was enforced by law (which the aristocrats made) in so many places, and why attempts to re-create aristocracy relied upon the slave trade (the US South) or the legal and economic subjugation of new groups of people (colonialism).
I didn't find Google Plus hard to use at all, and I find Facebook to be really inflexible and bad on privacy. But obviously a lot of people couldn't figure out Google Plus and don't care enough about privacy to try.
There are clues that appear commonly in crosswords and people have been compiling lists of them for years now (e.g. a five letter word starting in "O" and ending in "A" with the clue "works" --> "opera"; four letter word beginning and ending in "A" with clue "largest of 7" --> "Asia").
I suppose you could call using commonplace clues and answers "plagiarism", or you could call it "part of the game". But even if it's part of the game, wholesale copying of clues/answers from another puzzle would be plagiarism.
How am I dismissing the Norwegian's evidence? He said that the F35 has a better angle of attack, and that he can point the nose faster than an in F-16. That's good news, but it's not a head-to-head empirical evaluation against a modern fighter, which no advocate for the program would be anxious to do.
And we would do well to be extra-skeptical of good news from this program. It was deliberately structured so that programmatic failure would be catastrophic both to national defense plans, and to careers across three services. As long as there is any possibility of success, no matter how remote, there will be tremendous pressure to produce good news and suppress bad news. Remember the major general who was fired last year for telling A10 pilots that saying anything positive about the A10 would be viewed as "treason"? He wouldn't have been dismissed if he hadn't been caught. And what are we to make of the Marines declaring this aircraft "combat ready"? Do you believe that's true, except by some carefully crafted definition of "combat ready" that doesn't mean what most people would think when they hear "combat ready"?
So while we haven't reached the point where military officers are just making shit up, we have gone far past the point where they're being misleadingly selective with the truth. I don't think that this Norwegian guy is lying; I expect everything he claims is his honest opinion. But we're way past the point we should be talking about opinions. Forgive me if I don't take someone having a positive opinion as proof the program is turning the corner. I've been hearing that same refrain for the last ten years. By now it has reached "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" status.
I'm not unreasonable. I can be convinced that the F35 program will be a brilliant success. If the aircraft actually becomes usable (by which I don't mean declared "combat ready but we aren't ready to use it in combat yet") in the next two years, then since we don't have any other alternatives I say it's successful enough for now. And if you want to claim it's better than anything else around, I'll accept any actual head-to-head testing against modern aircraft under realistic conditions as proof you're right.
Now I'd like F35 advocates to be just as reasonable. Under what conditions would they consider the program a failure? And (slightly different question) at what point should we stop putting resources into it and develop alternatives? If you can't answer those questions then your advocacy of the program isn't based on rationality.
Indeed, but that's just one opinion; we know that others who have flown the plane have a different opinion. So who should we believe?
Probably both of them, depending on the situation and who you're asking. The problem is that this isn't how the F35 was sold. The F35 was sold as being clearly superior to anything else in the world at everything, except for air superiority where the F22 would edge it out. To do that it should perform so well that no competent pilot would imagine it to be anything less than unquestionably superior to a plane that was put into service 40 years ago, because the rest of the world has caught up and passed the 1983 benchmark.
It'd make more sense to compare the F35 to the SU-30, which has been in actual service for twenty years. If you want to show the F35 is going to deliver on its promises, put it up in an actual head-to-head empirical test against Indian SU-30MKIs. And do it under rules that are intended to compare the aircraft against each other rather than show the progress of the F35 against its previous iterations. Does anyone really believe that would go well?
We're at the point where the reality of the all-things-to-all-services strategy should be setting in. Maybe the F35 will be able do all those things, but it will never be quite as good as a modern purpose-built aircraft. Probably the Marines will be happy with it once enough since probably the biggest compromise-driver is STOVL. It'll be a clear upgrade from their Harriers. But it won't be the kind of world-beater we were promised because at best, if everything works as it is supposed to, it'd be a world beater for 2008. The rest of the world has known this thing was coming ever since 1993, and our most capable adversaries have been preparing.
Well, that's the thing about science is that there's always contradictory evidence. My experience is with more modern environmental data, and one thing it's taught me is to always remember that you're looking at a sample, which may not be representative. This is even more the case when you're looking at data points from 66 million years ago. It's not easy to conclusively say whether temperature were rising, falling, or both at the same time but in different places.
Science doesn't advance by individuals discovering the Truth; it advances by individuals latching on to tiny facets of the Truth and having a fight about whose facet is the whole Truth. All sides tend to be wrong initially.
Many years ago I participated in a paleontological expedition led by the late Dr. Keith Rigby, of Notre Dame. His research was developing a dinosaur species database by stratigraphy in Montana's Hell Creek formation, and his data showed that as you approach the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary, you see more dinosaur species that have what appear to be anatomical adaptations for higher temperatures. Above the K-T boundary of course you find no dinosaur remains. This would support a scenario in which the dinosaurs were already under adaptation pressures due to climate change, then were finished off by the asteroid strike.
A couple of cool things. In the Montana badlands you can actually see the K-T boundary in the stratigraphy; it's a chocolatey brown horizontal band about the width of your hand. I also got to help Dr. Rigby reconstruct a triceratops skull -- which is to say I got to hold his tools while he did the actual work. He pointed out how the frill was richly supplied with blood vessels. You could see the impressions on the surface of the frill, and the frill itself was well-supplied with blood vessels and was almost spongelike in appearance. The suborder Ceratopsia emerged at the end of the Cretaceous; if their frills functioned primarily as heat exchangers that would support Rigby's hypothesis.
So I wonder if that Gateway Liberty 2000 is actually still sitting on someone's desk where the toil away with WordPerfect and Windows 3.1 every day, or if it got tossed/walked out of the building in the late 90s and no one bothered to update the records.
j
It might not be either. One thing I've frequently seen in government offices is really old software they don't have the funding or time to replace or update. So it's not necessarily being used every day, but it may get fired up a couple of times a month to run some old FoxPro database on Windows 3, or maybe even once a year to run a Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet that generates a report.
If so the computer in question would be a good choice, because it's a small laptop. It wouldn't have to take up space on someone's desktop, you could shove it in a filing cabinet.
People seem remarkably naive about how this works. What you are looking at is people using each other to their advantages. Left wing or right wing have nothing to do with it.
For the record I don't think Trump is either. His ideology begins and ends with himself.
Well it doesn't take much of a study to show Hillary Clinton is not good at projecting warmth and sincerity on the stump. She's at her best in debates, where she she seems a lot more real. On the stump she seems really phony, and the big smile that doesn't reach to the eyes is a big part of that.
Now does that actually mean anything? Imagine you're a politician giving a campagin speech before a group. This may be the twentieth time you've given this exact speech before a similar group in the last week, but you've got to make it fresh for them, make your response to them seem spontaneous and authentic. It's well nigh impossible, but some people can do it. Bill Clinton can do it.
You know who else can do it? Donald Trump. If you think about what he's saying even a little bit he's clearly en epic bullshitter, but he makes a genuine-seeming emotional connection with crowds. And I think it seems genuine because on a certain level it is genuine. He's morbidly narcissistic and craves the admiration they're giving him.
Slashdot Mirror
But arguably that could cause salaries to rise as well, as programmers become more productive more software will be demanded.
Let's imagine that programmers become twice as productive. The simplistic way of looking at things is that half the programmers will have to lose their jobs. But imagine you had a programming project that would be worth $750K to you if it were done, but will cost you a cool million to finish. That project is currently creating zero programming jobs. But in our programmers-are-twice-as-productive scenario it would cost only $500K to develop, so you'd hire more programmers.
More AI programming would, in my opinion, shape the skillsets programmers need more than it will reduce the need for programmers. Ultimately the limiting factor in communication between two parties is their shared understanding. We are a long, long way from having AIs that share enough experience with people to interpret humans' contradictory needs. That means we'll be feeding AI "programmers" really, really precise specifications that encapsulate our human understanding of human needs.
Speaking as someone who's live in New England for almost 60 years now, for most of my life there was one regular pattern you could count on each winter: bitter, very dry cold would settle in in late December, followed by a slight rise in temperature in early February that would bring the first real snow of the season. The snow would get heavier and wetter as winter drew to a close.
You need two things for snow: sub-freezing temperatures AND water in the air. The 5F - 20F temperatures we had in January were plenty cold enough for snow, but the air was bone dry. The January skies were a deep, startling blue, often without a single wisp of cloud to be seen. The lack of water was also a contributor to the cold. Days with snow are almost always warmer because the clouds trap heat that would radiate into space. It's desert nights out west where the temperatures plunge fifty degrees after sundown.
You should be aware that even in global warming scenarios where the planet on average is several degrees warmer it'll still get cold enough for snow to fall out of the sky in most places where snow has historically been common. What you'll have a slight tendency to have less snow in many places due to temperature that's offset by a lot more water going into the atmosphere. Many places may see lots more snow.
In many high temperate regions you'll also see more frequent cold snaps. Global warming doesn't mean the climate gets warmer every day of every year; it means there are more total joules of thermal energy in the atmosphere. Since we're talking about a giant rotating ball of fluid which is exchanging heat with the surface and space what you get is much more complicated stuff happening.
Historians would disagree with you. But what would they know? They're probably, as you say, "Dumericans."
I didn't say it was nothing; I'm saying it was a big deal -- so big it began the transformation society. Or are you saying that the Black Death changed nothing because it was a catastrophe?
I can give another example of a catastrophe that is commonly held up as a textbook example of a good thing: the enclosure movement. Yes, it's good for us that the enclosure movement happened, but it was a catastrophe for most people at the time. It was an expropriation of economic interests held by the majority of people in the land for the benefit of the aristocracy that controlled parliament. The forcible expropriation of something valuable with neither consent or compensation would be regarded by most reasonable people as theft.
The whole point of universal suffrage is to prevent catastrophe being foisted on people who don't have a say in government. You could still have an enclosure movement if the people being kicked off the commons had a say, but you'd have to offer them compensation -- say by turning the manor into a corporation and giving them preferred stock shares.
*has* taken the Netherlands government this long to do this. The article isn't even about America, and neither is the comment you replied to (at least not stated).
The Dutch court ruled according to Dutch and EU law. They didn't make up new law, just ruled on how pre-existing law applied. There is no corresponding framework in the US law, other than the "Bill of Rights Penumbra" logic used in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, which struck down anti-birth control laws. However that is a much weaker privacy framework in that it does not apply to private entities like employers, only to US and state government intrusions on individual liberties.
So yes, I have thought about this, particularly from an American perspective as I am an American. I realize not all readers of this site are Americans, but many are.
Yeah but copyright law is not concerned with literary theory. So far as I know the notion that characters are copyrightable isn't written into any statutes. It certainly isn't written into the US Constitutional grant of copyright establishment powers to Congress. It's a matter of case law distinguishing between things like characters that are unique enough to copyright and things like themes which are universal enough to be impossible to copyright.
So if a judge decides that the same reasoning that says characters like Bruce Wayne are copyrightable applies to the car he drives, from the point of view of the law the car functions as a character even though from a literary standpoint it's just set-dressing.
It hasn't taken governments so long; there are other governments who do have stronger privacy protections (e.g., the Netherlands). It's American voters who are the problem.
American voters have all been taught about the American Revolution in a special, narrow way that primes us to conceive of tyranny as something that comes exclusively from governments. We've forgotten about the tyranny that come from allowing an aristocracy to exercise overwhelming power. That's what government was in most places in the world prior to the 1700s: minorities of powerful individuals who advanced their mutual interests by imposing their collective will on the majority and calling it government by traditional or god-given right.
The single most important event in the history of Western liberty was the Black Death. A medieval peasant couldn't take his labor elsewhere if he was unsatisfied with conditions on the manor; the landlords were effectively an agricultural cartel. But with nearly the entire work force exterminated by plague in many areas, labor prices rose. It became feasible for a peasant to take his labor elsewhere to sell -- if he wasn't caught and forced back onto the manor. The Black Death was the first crack in the aristocratic monopsony hold upon the labor market. That's why serfdom was enforced by law (which the aristocrats made) in so many places, and why attempts to re-create aristocracy relied upon the slave trade (the US South) or the legal and economic subjugation of new groups of people (colonialism).
No, but I don't reduce UI to layout only. I have respect for what graphic designers do, but there's more to it than that.
I have no opinion about G+ layout. I don't know how you're reading that into what I said.
I didn't find Google Plus hard to use at all, and I find Facebook to be really inflexible and bad on privacy. But obviously a lot of people couldn't figure out Google Plus and don't care enough about privacy to try.
There are clues that appear commonly in crosswords and people have been compiling lists of them for years now (e.g. a five letter word starting in "O" and ending in "A" with the clue "works" --> "opera"; four letter word beginning and ending in "A" with clue "largest of 7" --> "Asia").
I suppose you could call using commonplace clues and answers "plagiarism", or you could call it "part of the game". But even if it's part of the game, wholesale copying of clues/answers from another puzzle would be plagiarism.
I understand it's a process, but the process is a decade behind schedule.
How am I dismissing the Norwegian's evidence? He said that the F35 has a better angle of attack, and that he can point the nose faster than an in F-16. That's good news, but it's not a head-to-head empirical evaluation against a modern fighter, which no advocate for the program would be anxious to do.
And we would do well to be extra-skeptical of good news from this program. It was deliberately structured so that programmatic failure would be catastrophic both to national defense plans, and to careers across three services. As long as there is any possibility of success, no matter how remote, there will be tremendous pressure to produce good news and suppress bad news. Remember the major general who was fired last year for telling A10 pilots that saying anything positive about the A10 would be viewed as "treason"? He wouldn't have been dismissed if he hadn't been caught. And what are we to make of the Marines declaring this aircraft "combat ready"? Do you believe that's true, except by some carefully crafted definition of "combat ready" that doesn't mean what most people would think when they hear "combat ready"?
So while we haven't reached the point where military officers are just making shit up, we have gone far past the point where they're being misleadingly selective with the truth. I don't think that this Norwegian guy is lying; I expect everything he claims is his honest opinion. But we're way past the point we should be talking about opinions. Forgive me if I don't take someone having a positive opinion as proof the program is turning the corner. I've been hearing that same refrain for the last ten years. By now it has reached "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" status.
I'm not unreasonable. I can be convinced that the F35 program will be a brilliant success. If the aircraft actually becomes usable (by which I don't mean declared "combat ready but we aren't ready to use it in combat yet") in the next two years, then since we don't have any other alternatives I say it's successful enough for now. And if you want to claim it's better than anything else around, I'll accept any actual head-to-head testing against modern aircraft under realistic conditions as proof you're right.
Now I'd like F35 advocates to be just as reasonable. Under what conditions would they consider the program a failure? And (slightly different question) at what point should we stop putting resources into it and develop alternatives? If you can't answer those questions then your advocacy of the program isn't based on rationality.
Nancy Reagan was born the same year the flow chart was first described in the literature. You can read the paper here.
But to be fair she lived much longer than most rich voters.
Because nerds can't be interested in anything but technology, gaming, and pop-culture.
In case you haven't figured out, that's sarcasm.
Indeed, but that's just one opinion; we know that others who have flown the plane have a different opinion. So who should we believe?
Probably both of them, depending on the situation and who you're asking. The problem is that this isn't how the F35 was sold. The F35 was sold as being clearly superior to anything else in the world at everything, except for air superiority where the F22 would edge it out. To do that it should perform so well that no competent pilot would imagine it to be anything less than unquestionably superior to a plane that was put into service 40 years ago, because the rest of the world has caught up and passed the 1983 benchmark.
It'd make more sense to compare the F35 to the SU-30, which has been in actual service for twenty years. If you want to show the F35 is going to deliver on its promises, put it up in an actual head-to-head empirical test against Indian SU-30MKIs. And do it under rules that are intended to compare the aircraft against each other rather than show the progress of the F35 against its previous iterations. Does anyone really believe that would go well?
We're at the point where the reality of the all-things-to-all-services strategy should be setting in. Maybe the F35 will be able do all those things, but it will never be quite as good as a modern purpose-built aircraft. Probably the Marines will be happy with it once enough since probably the biggest compromise-driver is STOVL. It'll be a clear upgrade from their Harriers. But it won't be the kind of world-beater we were promised because at best, if everything works as it is supposed to, it'd be a world beater for 2008. The rest of the world has known this thing was coming ever since 1993, and our most capable adversaries have been preparing.
Well, that's the thing about science is that there's always contradictory evidence. My experience is with more modern environmental data, and one thing it's taught me is to always remember that you're looking at a sample, which may not be representative. This is even more the case when you're looking at data points from 66 million years ago. It's not easy to conclusively say whether temperature were rising, falling, or both at the same time but in different places.
Science doesn't advance by individuals discovering the Truth; it advances by individuals latching on to tiny facets of the Truth and having a fight about whose facet is the whole Truth. All sides tend to be wrong initially.
It can be both.
Many years ago I participated in a paleontological expedition led by the late Dr. Keith Rigby, of Notre Dame. His research was developing a dinosaur species database by stratigraphy in Montana's Hell Creek formation, and his data showed that as you approach the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary, you see more dinosaur species that have what appear to be anatomical adaptations for higher temperatures. Above the K-T boundary of course you find no dinosaur remains. This would support a scenario in which the dinosaurs were already under adaptation pressures due to climate change, then were finished off by the asteroid strike.
A couple of cool things. In the Montana badlands you can actually see the K-T boundary in the stratigraphy; it's a chocolatey brown horizontal band about the width of your hand. I also got to help Dr. Rigby reconstruct a triceratops skull -- which is to say I got to hold his tools while he did the actual work. He pointed out how the frill was richly supplied with blood vessels. You could see the impressions on the surface of the frill, and the frill itself was well-supplied with blood vessels and was almost spongelike in appearance. The suborder Ceratopsia emerged at the end of the Cretaceous; if their frills functioned primarily as heat exchangers that would support Rigby's hypothesis.
So I wonder if that Gateway Liberty 2000 is actually still sitting on someone's desk where the toil away with WordPerfect and Windows 3.1 every day, or if it got tossed/walked out of the building in the late 90s and no one bothered to update the records.
j
It might not be either. One thing I've frequently seen in government offices is really old software they don't have the funding or time to replace or update. So it's not necessarily being used every day, but it may get fired up a couple of times a month to run some old FoxPro database on Windows 3, or maybe even once a year to run a Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet that generates a report.
If so the computer in question would be a good choice, because it's a small laptop. It wouldn't have to take up space on someone's desktop, you could shove it in a filing cabinet.
People seem remarkably naive about how this works. What you are looking at is people using each other to their advantages. Left wing or right wing have nothing to do with it.
For the record I don't think Trump is either. His ideology begins and ends with himself.
Well it doesn't take much of a study to show Hillary Clinton is not good at projecting warmth and sincerity on the stump. She's at her best in debates, where she she seems a lot more real. On the stump she seems really phony, and the big smile that doesn't reach to the eyes is a big part of that.
Now does that actually mean anything? Imagine you're a politician giving a campagin speech before a group. This may be the twentieth time you've given this exact speech before a similar group in the last week, but you've got to make it fresh for them, make your response to them seem spontaneous and authentic. It's well nigh impossible, but some people can do it. Bill Clinton can do it.
You know who else can do it? Donald Trump. If you think about what he's saying even a little bit he's clearly en epic bullshitter, but he makes a genuine-seeming emotional connection with crowds. And I think it seems genuine because on a certain level it is genuine. He's morbidly narcissistic and craves the admiration they're giving him.
Sadly, no; it was over 30 years ago, before everything left some kind of Internet trace.
Hey, let's play the license plate game...