The systems are standardized - they can be automatically pulled and brought to a place safe for people. However, in the case that's already deployed, they use self-contained air units, like fire fighters.
If your code snippets are all working modules (not just functions) will well-defined inputs and outputs, the brute-forcing takes on a different meaning - combining modules that have the appropriate inputs and outputs with each other. Entirely doable.
They'll certainly end up being used against someone the US is allied with, and "agreements" aren't going to forestall that.
"such as national self-defense"
"Terr'rists active within our boders" It's been used as justification for all sorts of otherwise-illegal activity, so countries can stay within the terms of the agreement and still go after their own civilians.
We work hard to prevent nuclear proliferation... why not prevent advanced drone proliferation as well?
Hahahahahahahahaha... guess you didn't follow all the links in all the articles to supplementary material. One makes a darned good argument for the elimination of writing software by having computers do it. And why not - a computer can mix and match billions of code snippets already written and brute-force the "creativity" out of creating software by testing each one. I give it 20 years.
Construction creates temporary jobs. The workers work for a few months on a building that can last for decades. And the digital revolution is no longer creating more jobs than it destroys.
Now let's say we push the burden of guaranteed wage on society instead of the employer. Government writes that employee a check for $72.50 every week (10 hours X $7.25 guaranteed wage). The employee also gets $2/hour from the employer. Society gets what it wants by providing employment opportunities to everyone.
They're getting $72.50 a week from the government. Not "for every hour worked." That would mean that those who can't get a job get $0.00 It fails what you said in the next sentence (redistribute wealth):
So if we are going to redistribute wealth, let's put that burden directly on society instead of placing it on markets and industries that thrive with unskilled labor.
Also, you left out taxes on the "extra income". And "clawbacks".
Many of these data centers are run dark - no lights on. Couple that with high security hardware and software, and there's no need for an on-sight security force. And of course there's that data center that is flooded with nitrogen - no oxygen to breathe means no quick smash-and-grab.
My example was a side job, obviously, since it is only 10 hours a week. 40 hours a week under this structure is $19,240 per year, which is 27.5% more than a (federal) minimum wage employee makes today.
Next time perhaps you should check the numbers before complaining about my math.
Back at you. 40 hours @ $2/hr = $80/wk. Throw in your proposed weekly grant of $72.5 and the grand total is $152.50 a week. 52 weeks (no vacation time for YOU) gives the princely sum of $7,904 a year. How do you expect someone to live on that. especially when every person who takes a $2/hour job is forcing down wages, and if they charge even the minimum wage, they'll be replaced by an answering machine (as you originally pointed out).
Won't happen, because the cost of automation is already below minimum wage, and getting lower. All jobs are subject to automation in the future. I found this in one of the papers cited by one of the articles:
Big databases of code also offer the eventual prospect of algorithms that learn how to write programs to satisfy specications provided by a human. Such an approach is likely to eventually improve upon human programmers, in the same way that human-written compilers eventually proved inferior to automatically optimised compilers. An algorithm can better keep the whole of a program in working memory, and is not constrained to human-intelligible code, allowing for holistic solutions that might never occur to a human. Such algorithmic improvements over human judgement are likely to become increasingly common.
They pointed out that a lot of work that was assumed to be impossible to automate either already is, or we're on the cusp. Legal research, finding tumors in radiographs, making a diagnosis, self-driving cars, playing the stock market... we need to find a way to redistribute wealth or nobody will have an income to buy all those products the robots make.
How about also apologizing for not actually doing the math in your example?
You posited a govt. check of $72.50 and 10 hours a week at $2.00 an hour.
I seriously doubt that anyone who is surviving on $92.50 a week is going to have a roof over their heads so that they can "watch TV, rad a book", etc. They'll be too busy looking for shelter and visiting the soup kitchens. And of course they won't be able to afford basic insurance or medicine so it's game over when they get sick.
New York State Health Department research scientist Michael Kitto, PhD, says only a small fraction of the granite samples he has tested have emitted radon at levels that were over those considered safe.
But he added that a few of his samples showed levels that were high enough to alarm him.
“I wouldn’t have them in my house,” Kitto tells WebMD.
Rice University physics professor William Llope, PhD, found potentially dangerous levels of radiation in some tested samples of granite used in countertops.
Home-made rocket engines made by stuffing a used CO2 cartridge from an air gun with solid fuel propellant. Basically, it sounded good in theory, but in practice "blast-off" was all blast when it turned into a pipe bomb.
You don't have to go far - just take the americium for a smoke detector and you've got a radiation source.
Or you can buy it from the US Atomic Energy Commission for $1500 per gram. Or you can order (really) small amounts online, exempt from USNRC and State licensing. They produce sufficient count-rate to check survey meters or conduct most nuclear science experiments in normal lab periods using standard Geiger Mueller counters or scintillation detectors, yet low enough so as not to present any radiation hazard.
Or you can order directly from the government. Now that I've done all those searches for "radioisotopes for sale" I'm probably on a few watch lists:-)
When you can show a bunch of people who have gotten pregnant through oral or anal sex, then you'll have a point. Until then, they are forms of sex, and they don't result in pregnancy.
It's been known for decades that anabolic steroids can render the man sterile. Untreated STDs can do the same thing. So can too much weed. So can cancers that require the ablation of the testicles. So can radiation treatments.
Plus, you can just not have sex at all if you're not able to accept the inherent risks. Go invest in a RealDoll and knock yourself out.
You still ignore the fact that if the pregnancy is a mistake the women has the option to reverse that mistake. The man doesn't get that option
So what? You knew your risks and options "going in" (pun intended) and also knew the possible consequences. You say it isn't fair. News flash - life isn't fair.
But by then software development will be automated and programmers will be out of a job no matter what languages they know. I expect it in about 20-40 years.
Please, no insults. Besides, I've displayed more clue than you - I didn't respond to a statement about existing situations (Women can revert this mistake) with a hypothetical (what if men were pregnant?). I note that you've let that one go - wise choice indeed.
If men could get pregnant the morning-after pill would be available on demand and ship with a six-pack of beer and a large pizza. I was pointing out the difference in attitudes - guys almost always respond to an unwanted pregnancy by saying "I be with you when you need me - to go to the abortion clinic".
And yet guys can just get a vasectomy or use a condom or have oral/anal sex with their partner - problem solved.
... but as you said, you don't want to use a condom... awww, poor bay-bee. In other words, you are willingly engaging in conduct that you know can result in pregnancy.
Next, you claim
"I didn't say a women could. I said a couple could agree to it. And courts will not get involved if both parents agree to something."
You are claiming that a court will get involved in a civil matter even when it has not been approached to do so. I'm sorry but I've not heard of a single jurisdiction in which a court will look at an agreement between two parties and then refuse to stamp it.
The judge is obliged by federal law to see that these rules are enforced to the benefit of the child. Each agreement is reviewed for compliance by the court to these rules before the decision is rendered. No rubber stamps here. The final amount can be modified by the court if either party has a change in situation, or the child's needs change (schooling, medical, etc).
So now you've heard of 13 jurisdictions (each of the 10 provinces and 3 territories has additional rules in addition to this). Look around and you'll find more.
If you read all the links, one makes a good argument that software creation can and will be automated. Cheaper, quicker, less buggy. The robots used during the late part of the industrial revolution allowed more output per worker because they lacked any serious capabilities wrt flexibility of the job. Today, the worker is being eliminated at all levels of the food chain. It's already started to happen with certain medical specialties.
I can name five options for women, seven if you include after the fact options. Name two for men.
However, you continue to insist the following:
Currently the woman in a relationship has all the power w.r.t. if and when to have children..
... despite the fact that men have the power to avoid impregnating someone and having children. Getting a snip-snip and the condom are only two of many...
I can name five options for women, seven if you include after the fact options. Name two for men.
Guess you never had sex ed in school.
For men
1. Use a condom
2. Bring along some spermicide - "no sex unless we use this"
3. Vasectomy
4. Oral sex
5. Anal sex
6. Anabolic steroids
7. Untreated STDs
8. Too much weed (deformed sperm)
9. to (at least) 99 . See original "Joy of Sex."
And there are a lot more than 7 for women as well.
1. Tell the guy "no nookie if you don't use a condom"
2. Spermicide
3. The "female condom"
4. The diaphragm
5. The IUD
6. The vaginal ring
7. The estrogen patch
8. The implant - good for 3 years!
9. The pill
Now for the after-the-fact ones
10. The morning-after pill
11. Abortion
12. The copper "T" IUD - good up to 5 days after unprotected sex.
13. Dinoprostone injection
14 Misoprostol and mifepristone - up to 2 months after pregnancy.
And the "during"
15. Oral sex
16. Anal sex
17 to (at least) 99 . See original "Joy of Sex."
Slashdot Mirror
Try just the mask, right-side up.
The systems are standardized - they can be automatically pulled and brought to a place safe for people. However, in the case that's already deployed, they use self-contained air units, like fire fighters.
If your code snippets are all working modules (not just functions) will well-defined inputs and outputs, the brute-forcing takes on a different meaning - combining modules that have the appropriate inputs and outputs with each other. Entirely doable.
They'll certainly end up being used against someone the US is allied with, and "agreements" aren't going to forestall that.
"such as national self-defense"
"Terr'rists active within our boders" It's been used as justification for all sorts of otherwise-illegal activity, so countries can stay within the terms of the agreement and still go after their own civilians.
We work hard to prevent nuclear proliferation ... why not prevent advanced drone proliferation as well?
The next one will recognize your gait.
Crime is about o become completely impossible without the assistance of a specially trained AI assistant.
So put a small stone in one of your shoes and watch your gait change without you trying to "walk differently." Problem solved.
That is, unless you are a software engineer.
Hahahahahahahahaha ... guess you didn't follow all the links in all the articles to supplementary material. One makes a darned good argument for the elimination of writing software by having computers do it. And why not - a computer can mix and match billions of code snippets already written and brute-force the "creativity" out of creating software by testing each one. I give it 20 years.
Building like that are built in a few months, and most of the workers only do a part of the job, and then move on to the next job.
Construction creates temporary jobs. The workers work for a few months on a building that can last for decades. And the digital revolution is no longer creating more jobs than it destroys.
That's not what you said.
Now let's say we push the burden of guaranteed wage on society instead of the employer. Government writes that employee a check for $72.50 every week (10 hours X $7.25 guaranteed wage). The employee also gets $2/hour from the employer. Society gets what it wants by providing employment opportunities to everyone.
They're getting $72.50 a week from the government. Not "for every hour worked." That would mean that those who can't get a job get $0.00 It fails what you said in the next sentence (redistribute wealth):
So if we are going to redistribute wealth, let's put that burden directly on society instead of placing it on markets and industries that thrive with unskilled labor.
Also, you left out taxes on the "extra income". And "clawbacks".
If you wore a mask that made your face not look like a face, it will ignore you.
Many of these data centers are run dark - no lights on. Couple that with high security hardware and software, and there's no need for an on-sight security force. And of course there's that data center that is flooded with nitrogen - no oxygen to breathe means no quick smash-and-grab.
My example was a side job, obviously, since it is only 10 hours a week. 40 hours a week under this structure is $19,240 per year, which is 27.5% more than a (federal) minimum wage employee makes today.
Next time perhaps you should check the numbers before complaining about my math.
Back at you. 40 hours @ $2/hr = $80/wk. Throw in your proposed weekly grant of $72.5 and the grand total is $152.50 a week. 52 weeks (no vacation time for YOU) gives the princely sum of $7,904 a year. How do you expect someone to live on that. especially when every person who takes a $2/hour job is forcing down wages, and if they charge even the minimum wage, they'll be replaced by an answering machine (as you originally pointed out).
Won't happen, because the cost of automation is already below minimum wage, and getting lower. All jobs are subject to automation in the future. I found this in one of the papers cited by one of the articles:
Big databases of code also offer the eventual prospect of algorithms that learn how to write programs to satisfy specications provided by a human. Such an approach is likely to eventually improve upon human programmers, in the same way that human-written compilers eventually proved inferior to automatically optimised compilers. An algorithm can better keep the whole of a program in working memory, and is not constrained to human-intelligible code, allowing for holistic solutions that might never occur to a human. Such algorithmic improvements over human judgement are likely to become increasingly common.
They pointed out that a lot of work that was assumed to be impossible to automate either already is, or we're on the cusp. Legal research, finding tumors in radiographs, making a diagnosis, self-driving cars, playing the stock market ... we need to find a way to redistribute wealth or nobody will have an income to buy all those products the robots make.
How about also apologizing for not actually doing the math in your example?
You posited a govt. check of $72.50 and 10 hours a week at $2.00 an hour.
I seriously doubt that anyone who is surviving on $92.50 a week is going to have a roof over their heads so that they can "watch TV, rad a book", etc. They'll be too busy looking for shelter and visiting the soup kitchens. And of course they won't be able to afford basic insurance or medicine so it's game over when they get sick.
Finally people are waking up to the fact that the digital revolution doesn't necessarily create jobs, jobs, jobs.
New York State Health Department research scientist Michael Kitto, PhD, says only a small fraction of the granite samples he has tested have emitted radon at levels that were over those considered safe.
But he added that a few of his samples showed levels that were high enough to alarm him.
“I wouldn’t have them in my house,” Kitto tells WebMD.
Rice University physics professor William Llope, PhD, found potentially dangerous levels of radiation in some tested samples of granite used in countertops.
. Not all granite is the same.
Carrying it in your pocket could become the latest birth control technique :-)
Home-made rocket engines made by stuffing a used CO2 cartridge from an air gun with solid fuel propellant. Basically, it sounded good in theory, but in practice "blast-off" was all blast when it turned into a pipe bomb.
My guess - since it's a high school, you don't need that many different chemicals to cook meth.
You don't have to go far - just take the americium for a smoke detector and you've got a radiation source.
Or you can buy it from the US Atomic Energy Commission for $1500 per gram. Or you can order (really) small amounts online, exempt from USNRC and State licensing. They produce sufficient count-rate to check survey meters or conduct most nuclear science experiments in normal lab periods using standard Geiger Mueller counters or scintillation detectors, yet low enough so as not to present any radiation hazard.
Or you can order directly from the government. Now that I've done all those searches for "radioisotopes for sale" I'm probably on a few watch lists :-)
When you can show a bunch of people who have gotten pregnant through oral or anal sex, then you'll have a point. Until then, they are forms of sex, and they don't result in pregnancy.
It's been known for decades that anabolic steroids can render the man sterile. Untreated STDs can do the same thing. So can too much weed. So can cancers that require the ablation of the testicles. So can radiation treatments.
Plus, you can just not have sex at all if you're not able to accept the inherent risks. Go invest in a RealDoll and knock yourself out.
You still ignore the fact that if the pregnancy is a mistake the women has the option to reverse that mistake. The man doesn't get that option
So what? You knew your risks and options "going in" (pun intended) and also knew the possible consequences. You say it isn't fair. News flash - life isn't fair.
But by then software development will be automated and programmers will be out of a job no matter what languages they know. I expect it in about 20-40 years.
Please, no insults. Besides, I've displayed more clue than you - I didn't respond to a statement about existing situations (Women can revert this mistake) with a hypothetical (what if men were pregnant?). I note that you've let that one go - wise choice indeed.
If men could get pregnant the morning-after pill would be available on demand and ship with a six-pack of beer and a large pizza. I was pointing out the difference in attitudes - guys almost always respond to an unwanted pregnancy by saying "I be with you when you need me - to go to the abortion clinic".
And yet guys can just get a vasectomy or use a condom or have oral/anal sex with their partner - problem solved.
... but as you said, you don't want to use a condom ... awww, poor bay-bee. In other words, you are willingly engaging in conduct that you know can result in pregnancy.
Next, you claim
"I didn't say a women could. I said a couple could agree to it. And courts will not get involved if both parents agree to something."
You are claiming that a court will get involved in a civil matter even when it has not been approached to do so. I'm sorry but I've not heard of a single jurisdiction in which a court will look at an agreement between two parties and then refuse to stamp it.
Here in Canada (and this is not the only country to do this) there are rules for fixing the amount each parent pays in child support.
The judge is obliged by federal law to see that these rules are enforced to the benefit of the child. Each agreement is reviewed for compliance by the court to these rules before the decision is rendered. No rubber stamps here. The final amount can be modified by the court if either party has a change in situation, or the child's needs change (schooling, medical, etc).
So now you've heard of 13 jurisdictions (each of the 10 provinces and 3 territories has additional rules in addition to this). Look around and you'll find more.
If you read all the links, one makes a good argument that software creation can and will be automated. Cheaper, quicker, less buggy. The robots used during the late part of the industrial revolution allowed more output per worker because they lacked any serious capabilities wrt flexibility of the job. Today, the worker is being eliminated at all levels of the food chain. It's already started to happen with certain medical specialties.
I can name five options for women, seven if you include after the fact options. Name two for men.
However, you continue to insist the following:
Currently the woman in a relationship has all the power w.r.t. if and when to have children. .
... despite the fact that men have the power to avoid impregnating someone and having children. Getting a snip-snip and the condom are only two of many ...
I can name five options for women, seven if you include after the fact options. Name two for men.
Guess you never had sex ed in school.
For men
1. Use a condom
2. Bring along some spermicide - "no sex unless we use this"
3. Vasectomy
4. Oral sex
5. Anal sex
6. Anabolic steroids
7. Untreated STDs
8. Too much weed (deformed sperm)
9. to (at least) 99 . See original "Joy of Sex."
And there are a lot more than 7 for women as well.
1. Tell the guy "no nookie if you don't use a condom"
2. Spermicide
3. The "female condom"
4. The diaphragm
5. The IUD
6. The vaginal ring
7. The estrogen patch
8. The implant - good for 3 years!
9. The pill
Now for the after-the-fact ones
10. The morning-after pill
11. Abortion
12. The copper "T" IUD - good up to 5 days after unprotected sex.
13. Dinoprostone injection
14 Misoprostol and mifepristone - up to 2 months after pregnancy.
And the "during"
15. Oral sex
16. Anal sex
17 to (at least) 99 . See original "Joy of Sex."