look at our bodies, we are not natural-born hunting machines
Well trained humans are among the best long distance running animal in the world, especially in the heat. By chasing down an animal, until it's overheated and completely exhausted, you can kill it with simple tools. Some tribes still use the technique: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Superficially it will look like meat, but when you study the details, I'm sure you'll find plenty of differences. The chemicals that make up a piece of steak, for instance, are not all made locally in the muscle that it's cut from. For instance, the iron comes from red blood cells that are made in the bone marrow. The B12 vitamins are made by bacteria in the gut of the animal. Other things are made in the liver, spleen, gut, kidneys, and even the skin, and all transported through the bloodstream, where they infuse the muscle. Other things come the animal's food, or are made by microorganisms that form a symbiotic relationship with the animal. For instances, cows can survive on grass, but grass contains very little protein. The cow's stomachs work as fermentation tanks, using fungi and bacteria to create proteins (among other things) from grass. If you do a chemical analysis, you'd probably find thousands of different chemicals, made in different places. Some of these chemicals may be vital for our health. Some of them, we haven't even identified yet.
The problem with "fake meat" is that all these nutritional deficiencies are hidden. People just a piece of meat by taste, smell, and texture, not by availability of nutrients. At the same time, the industrial producer is only interested in profit, so they have every motivation to cut corners and produce a cheap but tasty piece of food, with little regard for nutrition.
Many believe the "It's settled science" party line, but there are quite a few people in the field of climate studies who don't.
Less than 1%, if you're talking about actual climate scientists.
1. How much actual control man really has? It is well known that the climate has varied greatly in the past.
Yes, everybody involved in climate studies knows this. They are also quite sure that man is responsible for this one. The science behind CO2 is well understood. CO2 has actually been responsible for quite a few climatic changes in the past (although on a much slower timescale)
2. How much actual harm does climate change actually represent? There are lots of theories about this, but the past predictions of catastrophic events have mysteriously not proven accurate (Al Gore, I'm looking at your "Inconvenient truth").
Al Gore is not a scientist. Real scientists are generally much more conservatives in their prediction. A few exceptions get a lot of press, because scary predictions sell papers. The real harm starts slow, and gets gradually worse over centuries. The problem is that the reverse is equally slow. So when we do get catastrophic events, it will be too late to stop them.
How much social and economic harm would come from some of the "save the world" initiatives being suggested?
Thank you for proving my point. You're debating policy again. A disease doesn't go away just because you don't like the cure.
Unlike the summary suggests, the Volvo is not a driverless car. It's a car with a Driver Assist function, with a special module to warn for large animals. The first step is to signal the driver, and provide information on the type of object. The driver can then decide what to do. Only if the driver doesn't react on time, the system takes over and brakes. It's still a fairly simple system.
Keep in mind that large wild animals are also potentially dangerous if they are not in the middle of the road, but standing next to the road, thinking about crossing.
Even better would be to integrate data from all sensors into one vision: camera + IR + ultrasound + radar + lidar, all around the vehicle, and then construct a unified 3D model of the surroundings.
It depends. A high skilled job that involves setting behind a desk and manipulating information may be easier to automate than a low skilled job that involves a lot of physical dexterity. In the first case, the interface to a machine is much easier to make, and the potential profit is much higher.
The good thing is that the car's sensors and algorithms can be fixed. It sounds like it's mostly a case of Volvo overlooking the effect of jumping animals. According to the Volvo information about their autonomous cars, they have camera, radar, laser, and ultrasonic sensors. With the right algorithms, the car should be much better than a human at detecting animals at night, and respond much quicker too.
The car should be dramatically better at this than a human
In this context "confirm" simply means that additional evidence was found to validate or corroborate something that was seen before. It's not a claim of infallible truth. The word "suggests" would be wrong, because that would typically indicate a novel finding.
I still see more value in allowing Google to bring up their own maps rather than having to bury it behind pages of advertisement filled crap as the EU wants.
The EU doesn't want that. They just want fair and equal results. It's okay if Google puts their own results first, if that is appropriate according to a fair page ranking algorithm. In the EU case, Google Shopping was not very popular, but Google put the results prominently at the top of their search results, while at the same time moving popular competing shopping comparison sites to page 4 and further.
What makes you think Google is taking extra effort to hide the competition?
In the shopping case, the EU has provided evidence. On the case of a search for "maps", you would expect major worldwide map providers such as bing to be displayed in the top-10 at least. In all competing search engines, bing appears near the top. Also, on the US google server, it appears near the top.
For contrast, on EU server, I get maps.google.in (that's India, and totally irrelevant for me) well before I get to any of the big competing map services.
Google's only option to satisfy you would be to take extra effort to boost the competition.
Not true. It's up to the EU lawyers to come up with compelling evidence for abuse. So, if Google uses an honest search ranking algorithm they won't get into trouble.
Google doesn't demote them, rather in terms of the search algorithm, they fall pretty far down the list, and for a very good reason: By hitting a price comparison, the user has to search AGAIN for what they just searched for.
Not true. I just tested by doing a search for "pantene shampoo", on local server with local language settings. If I click on the link with the comparison site (which is at the top of the page now), it takes me straight to the entry on pantene shampoos.
So, yeah, anybody with a brain is all for renewable energy. But anybody with a brain also wants the government to butt out and let the market handle it
A big problem is that the environmental cost of fossil fuels is not included in the market price.
I opened up a page with Google - on a Chromebook even, and typed in "maps".
I assume you are using a US server.
what's the problem? Are you demanding that Google put everyone else above their own hits?
The problem is that here in EU, the local google search does not return mapquest, yahoo, bing, iOS, or openstreetmaps at all, or only after 10+ pages of other search results. It's perfectly fine if Google is on top because it's the most popular. It's not fine if Google takes extra effort to hide all the competition.
The EU court apparently believes that merchants who don't pay Google to display their products in Shopping should have their products displayed along with the products offered by merchants who do pay Google.
Where are you reading that ? The problem is that there are other shopping comparison sites that compete with Google Shopping, and these sites are demoted in the search results, not because they are bad sites, but only because they compete with Google. Read TFA:
Google has demoted rival comparison shopping services in its search results: rival comparison shopping services appear in Google's search results on the basis of Google's generic search algorithms. Google has included a number of criteria in these algorithms, as a result of which rival comparison shopping services are demoted. Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival service appears on average only on page four of Google's search results, and others appear even further down. Google's own comparison shopping service is not subject to Google's generic search algorithms, including such demotions.
Right. If the other search providers put bing maps in the top-3, why does google put it on page 11 ? And not just bing maps, mapquest and openstreetmap are completely absent from the search results.
Slashdot Mirror
look at our bodies, we are not natural-born hunting machines
Well trained humans are among the best long distance running animal in the world, especially in the heat. By chasing down an animal, until it's overheated and completely exhausted, you can kill it with simple tools. Some tribes still use the technique:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Superficially it will look like meat, but when you study the details, I'm sure you'll find plenty of differences. The chemicals that make up a piece of steak, for instance, are not all made locally in the muscle that it's cut from. For instance, the iron comes from red blood cells that are made in the bone marrow. The B12 vitamins are made by bacteria in the gut of the animal. Other things are made in the liver, spleen, gut, kidneys, and even the skin, and all transported through the bloodstream, where they infuse the muscle. Other things come the animal's food, or are made by microorganisms that form a symbiotic relationship with the animal. For instances, cows can survive on grass, but grass contains very little protein. The cow's stomachs work as fermentation tanks, using fungi and bacteria to create proteins (among other things) from grass. If you do a chemical analysis, you'd probably find thousands of different chemicals, made in different places. Some of these chemicals may be vital for our health. Some of them, we haven't even identified yet.
The problem with "fake meat" is that all these nutritional deficiencies are hidden. People just a piece of meat by taste, smell, and texture, not by availability of nutrients. At the same time, the industrial producer is only interested in profit, so they have every motivation to cut corners and produce a cheap but tasty piece of food, with little regard for nutrition.
Why would you think it's a good idea to cherry pick tide gauges, instead of taking the average of all of them ?
https://skepticalscience.com/s...
Many believe the "It's settled science" party line, but there are quite a few people in the field of climate studies who don't.
Less than 1%, if you're talking about actual climate scientists.
1. How much actual control man really has? It is well known that the climate has varied greatly in the past.
Yes, everybody involved in climate studies knows this. They are also quite sure that man is responsible for this one. The science behind CO2 is well understood. CO2 has actually been responsible for quite a few climatic changes in the past (although on a much slower timescale)
2. How much actual harm does climate change actually represent? There are lots of theories about this, but the past predictions of catastrophic events have mysteriously not proven accurate (Al Gore, I'm looking at your "Inconvenient truth").
Al Gore is not a scientist. Real scientists are generally much more conservatives in their prediction. A few exceptions get a lot of press, because scary predictions sell papers. The real harm starts slow, and gets gradually worse over centuries. The problem is that the reverse is equally slow. So when we do get catastrophic events, it will be too late to stop them.
How much social and economic harm would come from some of the "save the world" initiatives being suggested?
Thank you for proving my point. You're debating policy again. A disease doesn't go away just because you don't like the cure.
Unlike the summary suggests, the Volvo is not a driverless car. It's a car with a Driver Assist function, with a special module to warn for large animals. The first step is to signal the driver, and provide information on the type of object. The driver can then decide what to do. Only if the driver doesn't react on time, the system takes over and brakes. It's still a fairly simple system.
Keep in mind that large wild animals are also potentially dangerous if they are not in the middle of the road, but standing next to the road, thinking about crossing.
Even better would be to integrate data from all sensors into one vision: camera + IR + ultrasound + radar + lidar, all around the vehicle, and then construct a unified 3D model of the surroundings.
It depends. A high skilled job that involves setting behind a desk and manipulating information may be easier to automate than a low skilled job that involves a lot of physical dexterity. In the first case, the interface to a machine is much easier to make, and the potential profit is much higher.
The good thing is that the car's sensors and algorithms can be fixed. It sounds like it's mostly a case of Volvo overlooking the effect of jumping animals. According to the Volvo information about their autonomous cars, they have camera, radar, laser, and ultrasonic sensors. With the right algorithms, the car should be much better than a human at detecting animals at night, and respond much quicker too.
The car should be dramatically better at this than a human
Better than a human is good enough for now.
In this context "confirm" simply means that additional evidence was found to validate or corroborate something that was seen before. It's not a claim of infallible truth. The word "suggests" would be wrong, because that would typically indicate a novel finding.
I expect that Volvo did most of the training with animals they find on the road in Sweden. The White Tailed Deer lives in North America.
No animal on the planet would run into a kangaroo.
Except for humans. According to TFA there are 16,000 kangaroo strikes per year.
I understand why political preferences have a big impact on policy of energy generation. That makes total sense.
Denying basic science behind AGW, based on political preference makes no sense.
The debate over policy would be much improved if we start with accepting the objective facts.
just maybe based on google's data there aren't many people actually clicking through to bing
That would be kind of hard to do if it's hidden on page 11, with a sign that says "beware of the leopard".
I still see more value in allowing Google to bring up their own maps rather than having to bury it behind pages of advertisement filled crap as the EU wants.
The EU doesn't want that. They just want fair and equal results. It's okay if Google puts their own results first, if that is appropriate according to a fair page ranking algorithm. In the EU case, Google Shopping was not very popular, but Google put the results prominently at the top of their search results, while at the same time moving popular competing shopping comparison sites to page 4 and further.
What makes you think Google is taking extra effort to hide the competition?
In the shopping case, the EU has provided evidence. On the case of a search for "maps", you would expect major worldwide map providers such as bing to be displayed in the top-10 at least. In all competing search engines, bing appears near the top. Also, on the US google server, it appears near the top.
For contrast, on EU server, I get maps.google.in (that's India, and totally irrelevant for me) well before I get to any of the big competing map services.
Google's only option to satisfy you would be to take extra effort to boost the competition.
Not true. It's up to the EU lawyers to come up with compelling evidence for abuse. So, if Google uses an honest search ranking algorithm they won't get into trouble.
It's like telling a popular Chinese restaurant that they have to put Italian options up for the shitty restaurant across the street.
You missed the word 'other', even after I took the extra effort to make it bold.
My understanding was that this EU fine was about generic search.
You were correct. It is about generic search demoting competing shopping sites in the results. It has nothing to do with the Shopping tab.
What is "honest"? Different algorithms for search will provide different results
"honest" is not demoting sites just because they are competing with Google, as the EU has demonstrated they do.
If you don't like it, don't use Google. It's that simple
The law doesn't work that way. Google needs to fix their shop. It's that simple.
That's what I did. I searched for "maps". As mentioned several times already.
Google doesn't demote them, rather in terms of the search algorithm, they fall pretty far down the list, and for a very good reason: By hitting a price comparison, the user has to search AGAIN for what they just searched for.
Not true. I just tested by doing a search for "pantene shampoo", on local server with local language settings. If I click on the link with the comparison site (which is at the top of the page now), it takes me straight to the entry on pantene shampoos.
So, yeah, anybody with a brain is all for renewable energy. But anybody with a brain also wants the government to butt out and let the market handle it
A big problem is that the environmental cost of fossil fuels is not included in the market price.
I opened up a page with Google - on a Chromebook even, and typed in "maps".
I assume you are using a US server.
what's the problem? Are you demanding that Google put everyone else above their own hits?
The problem is that here in EU, the local google search does not return mapquest, yahoo, bing, iOS, or openstreetmaps at all, or only after 10+ pages of other search results. It's perfectly fine if Google is on top because it's the most popular. It's not fine if Google takes extra effort to hide all the competition.
The EU court apparently believes that merchants who don't pay Google to display their products in Shopping should have their products displayed along with the products offered by merchants who do pay Google.
Where are you reading that ? The problem is that there are other shopping comparison sites that compete with Google Shopping, and these sites are demoted in the search results, not because they are bad sites, but only because they compete with Google. Read TFA:
Google has demoted rival comparison shopping services in its search results: rival comparison shopping services appear in Google's search results on the basis of Google's generic search algorithms. Google has included a number of criteria in these algorithms, as a result of which rival comparison shopping services are demoted. Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival service appears on average only on page four of Google's search results, and others appear even further down. Google's own comparison shopping service is not subject to Google's generic search algorithms, including such demotions.
That bing isn't popular enough on google results?
Right. If the other search providers put bing maps in the top-3, why does google put it on page 11 ? And not just bing maps, mapquest and openstreetmap are completely absent from the search results.
We are compelling you to make your services suck more so you will sink down to their level.
How is providing an honest search result equal to "make your services suck more" ?