I do not approve of any system that will arbitrarily override my basic controls of the vehicle,
You do realize that most cars sold in the last couple of decades have computers that can override your inputs and monkey around with your brakes whenever you're trying to speed up or slow down the vehicle?
Handle blocks of code independant of formatting constraints like indenting.
All the while enabling decades of bike shed arguments about brace formatting and countless bugs due to optional braces (because they are under-constrained).
It was a single expression after the print. Python allows him indent it any way he wants to. He could have arranged the expression into a variety of pretty cascaded tree shapes similar to lisp code (especially if he slapped one more set of parens around the whole thing), and Python would have parsed it just fine. Leaving it on one line works just as well, as would random indentation.
Python's block indentation rules applies only to statements.
I think I'll go down to my basement and gather up a buch of old through-hole resistors, caps, potentiometers, 555 timers and 74-series TTL logic. Then I'll fill a 40 oz bottle with them and slowly pour it all out on the ground.
Then maybe I'll scribble my full name, address and phone number on a 3-sheet carbon paper form one last time.
Names don't necessarily hold back any language. For example, having a name that's exactly the same as a below-average schoolwork grade clearly doesn't prevent you from becoming one of the most prevalent programming languages in computer history.
The problem is, gold has almost no intrinsic value. Its main usefulness is its scarcity. If you start bringing back large quantities, your "trillions of dollars" are going to disappear in a poof of nothingness.
The Spaniards discovered a similar problem when they appropriated the large amounts of gold easily available in the New World. They soon found themselves in a financial crisis brought on by the plummeting value of gold.
The memory, as little as it is, the Voyager spacecraft, must be of a different sort. Launched in the late 1970s, the electronics is still functioning, although with a few issues. That'll soon be four times longer that the Rover.
The Voyager craft were intended to operate for many years. The mars rovers weren't. The mars rovers also reside in a much harsher environment than the space probes which float weightlessly in a vacuum at a constant temperature.
There was no reason to design the flash memory to last much longer than the expected lifetimes of the wheel bearings or solar panels. Just because by some miracle those both lasted much longer than expected, it doesn't mean that additional investments of resources into the memory would have been justified.
That, I tell friends, is why I'm happy to drive a 30+ year old car. It has issues, but the hardware it's built from is inherently more long-lived than that in today's cars. A crank-up window just keeps working. One driven by an electric motor doesn't.
False. Cars from that era were routinely sent to the scrapyard when they were less than 10 years old because they were rusted beyond repair. Now the average age of US cars is over ten years, twice what it was in the 1960s. Old cars also required constant maintenance of problem-prone mechanical parts such as ignition points and carburetors.
You certainly could get to a point where it's just too much of a bother to even keep track of a low-achieving human employee vs. having a robot do it. Those people could essentially become unemployable. Some people could be encouraged to try harder to achieve, but in many cases you can't get blood out of a turnip. Every year the percentage of people who fail to make the grade could increase as robots gain capabilities.
I'm sure your fine with that because they're receiving what they're worth. But if it's not handled correctly, these hoards of "useless" people could end up stepping out of your little free market box, turning into angry mobs and burning everything down.
The whole point of this topic is that as the supply of labor (provided by workers and/or robots) goes up, the value goes down. Eventually, many people's market value may end up to be essentially zero vs. robots, regardless of what kind of country they live in. You would then probably advocate that we encourage them to work for free; problem solved!
The approaches of the past may not apply it all in the potentially a drastically different future dominated by self-directed automation.
People like you can't seem to wrap your heads around the difference between the physical product of some unit of manual labor, and the creation of an idea.
I know that they're completely different. Copyright fanbois are the ones who don't realize that copyrights are a ham-fisted attempt to make an infinitely replicable idea seem more like a physical object via creating artificial scarcity through government fiat.
And the differences don't apply to my point: You do some work. You get paid for it. Then you should move on and do more work. Your grandchildren should not be able to charge rents a century down the road based on artificially created scarcity without having to do work themselves. That makes no economic sense.
Compare the value of all the tea in crates on docks in Boston harbor in 1776 against the intangible ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and tell me which was more valuable.
Indeed those documents were very valuable. Somehow they even got created without the benefit of copyright protection or ownership rights by their authors. How could that be? Maybe it's because copyright is highly overrated in the first place.
Actually, if made it past childhood, life expectancy back then wasn't dramatically less than it is now. It certainly wasn't 5X less, like the copyright terms were.
I can also never figure out why anybody gives a damn about the lifetime of the author. The crew that mudjacked my driveway 20 years ago are probably still alive. None of them are showing up here demanding tips when people park on my driveway.
Yes, the public should be allowed to profit from the work of others.
That's exactly true, and in fact that's the reason that the US Constitution plainly states that copyrights are to be granted only for limited times. The founders of this country clearly wanted the public to profit from the works of others, after as little as 14 years.
Slashdot Mirror
You need to go watch a local SCCA race. Lifting the inside rear wheel is normal.
Normal in a race.
Several makers, like VW and Mazda, even show their cars doing that in their ads.
"Closed course. Professional driver. Do not attempt."
On my Honda [yadda yadda rant rant]
Looks like you need to get a bumper sticker with Calvin pissing on a Honda.
Your car is trying to tell you that you're about to roll it.
I do not approve of any system that will arbitrarily override my basic controls of the vehicle,
You do realize that most cars sold in the last couple of decades have computers that can override your inputs and monkey around with your brakes whenever you're trying to speed up or slow down the vehicle?
Exactly, what can C do that python can't?
Handle blocks of code independant of formatting constraints like indenting.
All the while enabling decades of bike shed arguments about brace formatting and countless bugs due to optional braces (because they are under-constrained).
Furthermore you need to indent it properly.
It was a single expression after the print. Python allows him indent it any way he wants to. He could have arranged the expression into a variety of pretty cascaded tree shapes similar to lisp code (especially if he slapped one more set of parens around the whole thing), and Python would have parsed it just fine. Leaving it on one line works just as well, as would random indentation.
Python's block indentation rules applies only to statements.
I think a libation is in order.
I think I'll go down to my basement and gather up a buch of old through-hole resistors, caps, potentiometers, 555 timers and 74-series TTL logic. Then I'll fill a 40 oz bottle with them and slowly pour it all out on the ground.
Then maybe I'll scribble my full name, address and phone number on a 3-sheet carbon paper form one last time.
My hovercraft is full of eels.
... unless they've made a slight math error in their navigation computations.
Names don't necessarily hold back any language. For example, having a name that's exactly the same as a below-average schoolwork grade clearly doesn't prevent you from becoming one of the most prevalent programming languages in computer history.
The problem is, gold has almost no intrinsic value. Its main usefulness is its scarcity. If you start bringing back large quantities, your "trillions of dollars" are going to disappear in a poof of nothingness.
The Spaniards discovered a similar problem when they appropriated the large amounts of gold easily available in the New World. They soon found themselves in a financial crisis brought on by the plummeting value of gold.
He didn't claim it was an analogy. He claimed that one is the other.
Yes, copyright infringement is stealing.
Factually incorrect.Copyright infringement and theft have completely different legal definitions and different laws apply to each.
You're starting off on a false premise, and using mathy-looking letter variables doesn't make your logic any less sloppy.
The memory, as little as it is, the Voyager spacecraft, must be of a different sort. Launched in the late 1970s, the electronics is still functioning, although with a few issues. That'll soon be four times longer that the Rover.
The Voyager craft were intended to operate for many years. The mars rovers weren't. The mars rovers also reside in a much harsher environment than the space probes which float weightlessly in a vacuum at a constant temperature.
There was no reason to design the flash memory to last much longer than the expected lifetimes of the wheel bearings or solar panels. Just because by some miracle those both lasted much longer than expected, it doesn't mean that additional investments of resources into the memory would have been justified.
That, I tell friends, is why I'm happy to drive a 30+ year old car. It has issues, but the hardware it's built from is inherently more long-lived than that in today's cars. A crank-up window just keeps working. One driven by an electric motor doesn't.
False. Cars from that era were routinely sent to the scrapyard when they were less than 10 years old because they were rusted beyond repair. Now the average age of US cars is over ten years, twice what it was in the 1960s. Old cars also required constant maintenance of problem-prone mechanical parts such as ignition points and carburetors.
I think that's the vendor which provided the costumes and props for the original "Wizard of Oz" film.
Your repetitive "developed vs 3rd" world red herring is tiresome.
We're talking about future developments that will apply everywhere.
You certainly could get to a point where it's just too much of a bother to even keep track of a low-achieving human employee vs. having a robot do it. Those people could essentially become unemployable. Some people could be encouraged to try harder to achieve, but in many cases you can't get blood out of a turnip. Every year the percentage of people who fail to make the grade could increase as robots gain capabilities.
I'm sure your fine with that because they're receiving what they're worth. But if it's not handled correctly, these hoards of "useless" people could end up stepping out of your little free market box, turning into angry mobs and burning everything down.
If the demand for productive labor can be filled by more robots, the value of human labor can still stay at zero.
What "actual issue"? I just soundly disproved everything you stated.
There must be some kind of vague concept in your head that you can't seem to actually express, but you're just sure that I "don't get it".
The whole point of this topic is that as the supply of labor (provided by workers and/or robots) goes up, the value goes down. Eventually, many people's market value may end up to be essentially zero vs. robots, regardless of what kind of country they live in. You would then probably advocate that we encourage them to work for free; problem solved!
The approaches of the past may not apply it all in the potentially a drastically different future dominated by self-directed automation.
The problem is that median wages have been stagnating for decades.
Your solution to the problem is to lower them further.
People like you can't seem to wrap your heads around the difference between the physical product of some unit of manual labor, and the creation of an idea.
I know that they're completely different. Copyright fanbois are the ones who don't realize that copyrights are a ham-fisted attempt to make an infinitely replicable idea seem more like a physical object via creating artificial scarcity through government fiat.
And the differences don't apply to my point: You do some work. You get paid for it. Then you should move on and do more work. Your grandchildren should not be able to charge rents a century down the road based on artificially created scarcity without having to do work themselves. That makes no economic sense.
Compare the value of all the tea in crates on docks in Boston harbor in 1776 against the intangible ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and tell me which was more valuable.
Indeed those documents were very valuable. Somehow they even got created without the benefit of copyright protection or ownership rights by their authors. How could that be? Maybe it's because copyright is highly overrated in the first place.
Actually, if made it past childhood, life expectancy back then wasn't dramatically less than it is now. It certainly wasn't 5X less, like the copyright terms were.
I can also never figure out why anybody gives a damn about the lifetime of the author. The crew that mudjacked my driveway 20 years ago are probably still alive. None of them are showing up here demanding tips when people park on my driveway.
Yes, the public should be allowed to profit from the work of others.
That's exactly true, and in fact that's the reason that the US Constitution plainly states that copyrights are to be granted only for limited times. The founders of this country clearly wanted the public to profit from the works of others, after as little as 14 years.
In what way is a "robot" a "life form"?
If they're able to manufacture more robots, then it's life... but not as we know it.
Why stop there?
They should also add a spell checker and auto-correct to the file system driver just to make sure people haven't made any mistakes.