People making irresponsible and extreme statements about climate need to be disavowed by scientists or the science itself will lose credibility with the public. To a large extent, it already has -- and deservedly so. Get it back by being honest and open and by staying away from politics. It's going to take a really long time.
And, yeah, I understand uncertainty and error bars. When the actual, measured temperatures are outside the error bars, the models need to be declared to be incorrect. My understanding is that this should happen within the next few years for many models, if measured warming trends continue.
Nah. Just skip it. Sure it's a great product, but so what? If you need to invest 50 times your life savings on testing and insurance and lawyers and regulatory compliance, then why bother even trying?
All "products" should be designed by big corporations, with lawyers, quality assurance departments, and government-certified regulatory compliance divisions.
Hackers and experimentors? What law school did they graduate from? They'll only get someone hurt.
Because risk is an ordinary part of life. If you punish "damage", you punish risk. If no one can ever be allowed to take a risk, no one can ever realize the rewards for taking a risk. People are kept artificially poor, with bland lives, only allowed to engage in government-pre-approved activities, like convicts in a giant prison camp.
The US liability system enriches lawyers and insurance companies at everyone else's expense. It's not just robotics that needs the law changed. There are thousands of different activities that would be promoted by changing the liability laws -- essentially anything that anyone could ever be sued for, from something as ordinary as having an honest conversation on up to really crazy, impossible things like selling an educational chemistry set.
Crop growers need bees. Beekeepers supply bees. When bees die, beekeepers make more. Maybe crop growers pay more and prices increase a little.
If pesticides on crops are killing bees, crop growers might have to decide whether they want the benefit of the pesticide at the cost of paying more for bees. It's probably not a hard calculation for them.
You can get almost all of the same games for the PC you're using to emulate the console. They're probably much cheaper on the PC. The PC versions will probably work better than the console versions plus the emulator. The online functions of the consoles will probably never work on the emulator.
It seems like a lot of effort to build something inferior.
You certainly can't 'control' it. It might be possible to guide it to a small degree. Especially with the ubiquitous use of 'surveillance' cameras which are, at present, fairly low technology, low resolution devices that can be spoofed by various means.
You can also smash them (put on a mask first, obviously). Or shoot them with a shotgun.
Since you can't hide from the people who want to hurt you, that leaves only 2 options:
1. Be the most powerful person, so no one else would dare try to hurt you because you'd hurt them a lot worse in return. Or 2. Work with others to create a society where no one has enough power to do you much harm. This means carefully limiting all centralized power, especially including the government -- the only power that will send armed men to your house and take you away for disobeying them. Other centralized power structures should also be limited as much as possible.
"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." -- Barack Obama, June 15, 2009
Cheapest answer: legalize. Tax the substances to help the poorest abusers pay for substance-abuse treatment. No prison guards needed, and no sober folks need to be ripped off.
Young people are the poorest age group. Middle aged and older people are the wealthiest age groups. Why should relatively poor young folks continue to pay more and more and more to subsidize their relatively rich elders?
The president said "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." He said it over and over, in a dozen different ways. Are you suggesting this thing the President said wasn't true?
GMOs produce toxins. Those toxins have already been shown to stay in the human body almost indefinitely, compromising the human immune system. And, in perfect correlation to the spread of GMOs, all sorts of illnesses are growing and a rapid rate.
They turned me into a newt!
This is why they refuse to do any long-term studies.
We shouldn't make public policy based on one asshole's quasi-moral arm-twisting.
And BTW: I'm for liberalization of laws enabling the outcome Scott Adams wants. I don't think licensing doctors to kill people is the way to go with it. I'd rather we lessen government control of the necessary drugs and allow people to administer them themselves. In cases where that's not possible, there should be a way for family members to petition a judge for a court order allowing them to administer a lethal dose.
Slashdot Mirror
People making irresponsible and extreme statements about climate need to be disavowed by scientists or the science itself will lose credibility with the public. To a large extent, it already has -- and deservedly so. Get it back by being honest and open and by staying away from politics. It's going to take a really long time.
And, yeah, I understand uncertainty and error bars. When the actual, measured temperatures are outside the error bars, the models need to be declared to be incorrect. My understanding is that this should happen within the next few years for many models, if measured warming trends continue.
... soon to be sued into bankruptcy.
"the science is settled".
How can there be any uncertainty when "the science is settled"?
The science is settled: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642
Nah. Just skip it. Sure it's a great product, but so what? If you need to invest 50 times your life savings on testing and insurance and lawyers and regulatory compliance, then why bother even trying?
All "products" should be designed by big corporations, with lawyers, quality assurance departments, and government-certified regulatory compliance divisions.
Hackers and experimentors? What law school did they graduate from? They'll only get someone hurt.
Because risk is an ordinary part of life. If you punish "damage", you punish risk. If no one can ever be allowed to take a risk, no one can ever realize the rewards for taking a risk. People are kept artificially poor, with bland lives, only allowed to engage in government-pre-approved activities, like convicts in a giant prison camp.
The US liability system enriches lawyers and insurance companies at everyone else's expense. It's not just robotics that needs the law changed. There are thousands of different activities that would be promoted by changing the liability laws -- essentially anything that anyone could ever be sued for, from something as ordinary as having an honest conversation on up to really crazy, impossible things like selling an educational chemistry set.
Crop growers need bees. Beekeepers supply bees. When bees die, beekeepers make more. Maybe crop growers pay more and prices increase a little.
If pesticides on crops are killing bees, crop growers might have to decide whether they want the benefit of the pesticide at the cost of paying more for bees. It's probably not a hard calculation for them.
This is only "alarming" for drama people.
You can get almost all of the same games for the PC you're using to emulate the console. They're probably much cheaper on the PC. The PC versions will probably work better than the console versions plus the emulator. The online functions of the consoles will probably never work on the emulator.
It seems like a lot of effort to build something inferior.
Do you have electricity for the computers to use? If so, someone was once able to install wiring. Call that guy to install network wiring.
"Preventing" crimes is not justice. Locking up innocents to "prevent" them from committing crimes is essentially the opposite of justice.
Also, note what they're preventing: "crimes". Not violence or any action that harms anyone. "Crimes" encompasses all manner of disobedience toward authority, regardless of whether that authority is legitimate. Example: Man faces felony charge over trimming shrubs. Not a crime: DEA locks up a student, forgets about him for 4 days with no food or water.
You certainly can't 'control' it. It might be possible to guide it to a small degree. Especially with the ubiquitous use of 'surveillance' cameras which are, at present, fairly low technology, low resolution devices that can be spoofed by various means.
You can also smash them (put on a mask first, obviously). Or shoot them with a shotgun.
Since you can't hide from the people who want to hurt you, that leaves only 2 options:
1. Be the most powerful person, so no one else would dare try to hurt you because you'd hurt them a lot worse in return. Or
2. Work with others to create a society where no one has enough power to do you much harm. This means carefully limiting all centralized power, especially including the government -- the only power that will send armed men to your house and take you away for disobeying them. Other centralized power structures should also be limited as much as possible.
...you can't. That's what "out of your control" means.
that statement was clearly a bit of hyperbole
If a private sector insurance salesman promised that, it would be called fraud.
"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." -- Barack Obama, June 15, 2009
http://www.politifact.com/obama-like-health-care-keep/
Cheapest answer: legalize. Tax the substances to help the poorest abusers pay for substance-abuse treatment. No prison guards needed, and no sober folks need to be ripped off.
Your personal story contradicts the tales spun by the laws' proponents. Are you sure you exist?
And coverage for substance abuse treatment -- mandatory for non-drinkers and non-drug users.
Your reward for sobriety? You get to pay for some else's addiction. Congrats.
Young people are the poorest age group. Middle aged and older people are the wealthiest age groups. Why should relatively poor young folks continue to pay more and more and more to subsidize their relatively rich elders?
How can that be?
The president said "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." He said it over and over, in a dozen different ways. Are you suggesting this thing the President said wasn't true?
If officials say it, that makes it official. No need to check.
Go forth and force men and 50-year old women to buy insurance for childbirth! Forward.
I'm more of a no witch hunts fanboy.
GMOs produce toxins. Those toxins have already been shown to stay in the human body almost indefinitely, compromising the human immune system. And, in perfect correlation to the spread of GMOs, all sorts of illnesses are growing and a rapid rate.
They turned me into a newt!
This is why they refuse to do any long-term studies.
I got better.
Yeah! It's time to get this hunt started. We need to start asking the most important scientific question of all:
Does Monsanto weigh the same as a duck?
We shouldn't make public policy based on one asshole's quasi-moral arm-twisting.
And BTW: I'm for liberalization of laws enabling the outcome Scott Adams wants. I don't think licensing doctors to kill people is the way to go with it. I'd rather we lessen government control of the necessary drugs and allow people to administer them themselves. In cases where that's not possible, there should be a way for family members to petition a judge for a court order allowing them to administer a lethal dose.
But Scott Adams is still an asshole.