...and this test probably wouldn't work in Olympic pools since those swimmers are on rigorous diets...
You do know that an "Olympic pool" is referring to the size, not the fact that only Olympians can swim in them? For 99.99% of their life, an Olympic pool is used by regular pool pissing patrons.
No, he's saying that corporate programming managers are too timid to take risks.
It's hard to understand what's been lost if don't remember radio from when most radio stations were independently owned, and of course manually operated by an on-site engineer and broadcaster.
I'm almost the same age as Jay Z, and I used to work in Radio when I was a teenager. Even back then, we had one corporation that owned the top five radio stations in town. A top 40 station, a rock station, classics, talk, and easy listening.
Commercial radio has always been about advertising, even then. They simply covered all market segments so any they could target any ad to any age group. What has probably changed is that is no longer cost effective to run an expensive radio license for smaller niche market segments, so they drop off leaving the lowest common denominator, ie top 40.
Being in an SUV is safer than being in a small car, no matter what everyone else is buying.
You've changed the argument now. Being in an SUV might be safer than being in a smaller car. But SUVs are not safer overall than a small car (since a proportion of road deaths involve pedestrians and cyclists, who I assume would prefer to be hit by a small car than a small truck).
This may sound pedantic, but it's actually important since the SUV safety gimmick is based only on the occupants, not anyone else. And road safety should be about all of us. If you are interested in making roads safer for everyone, then the smaller vehicles are preferred.
Race as a social construct is very nice for psychologists, but tell me, is it bad to know that people originating from a certain area and subject to certain diseases by their genetics now forbidden knowledge? Is the very researching of this sort of thing racist?
Originating from a certain area isn't race. That is the point. How do you define race these days? It's not being from a certain area, since migration patterns throw this out the window. It's not the colour of their skin or their features since the variations are so large. So how do you define race in a scientifically useful way? And to bring it back on topic, how is this case of shooting an Indian that you thought was Arabic, not racist?
How would you fight it? By moaning loudly on internet forums?
The proposal is only a wipe. If this happened accidentally you can log back into icloud or your google account and resync. Crisis averted.
Personally I have no need for it, but if manufacturers built it in I wouldn't complain. It doesn't have to be compulsory, like most features it could be disabled.
Imagine a prankster or a drunk friend or a child getting your phone and trying this out.
Why not have a second PIN that opens a sanitized, but seemingly fully normal, home page? Missing a few critical apps, or having versions signed into a different account.
Because if the device is confiscated, a simple dump of the memory will reveal everything.
It does. It also illustrates your rather disappointing lack of humor.
It could just be that you aren't as funny as you think you are.
And it's where left wing, reshuffle everything idealists end up turning simple concepts into meaningless messes. And where you don't understand why when a decent majority of people believe in most of your concepts, you are adament about derailing the train for the least important matters.
And herein lies the point of your babble. A little rant about the left, or the democrats, or whoever it is you hate.
For the record I have no political leaning, both sides are as crazy as each other, so anyone attacking one, is clearly on the other and therefore to me just as crazy.
If you want the science, you can start here: https://www.scientificamerican...
Scientific American disagrees with you. You'd better submit your disproof paper to them immediately.
Of course, you aren't — Blacks are given a pass by all your news-sources, when they discriminate or even murder based on race.
Probably because being based in a country on the other side of the world, my local media don't care about your local news, just as I'm sure yours don't report ours. Conspiracy averted, but your response says a lot about your ability to engage in a rational discussion.
If you wish to redefine the meaning of "race" (or "sex" for that matter), you need to change the law that bans discrimination based on it.
I'm not redefining it, I'm merely informing you that the definition of race has improved since the 19th century when everyone was either Caucasian, Negroid or Mongoloid
Funny, this argument — But I identify as Black! — didn't help certain Ms. Dolezal keep her job at, of all places, NAACP...
I'm not too familiar with the case but wiki tells me she resigned from her job because she had been caught lying about her background. While I'm sure activists from all sides use this case for whatever ideological reason, the fact is that lying and misconduct are real things that you can be fired for.
Evidently, some races — whatever the term means — are more equal than others.
Of course, because historically humans were more ignorant than today which created unequal societies. We try to fix this over time, but some people think that going back to the 'good old days , whenever they were supposed to be, will solve all of this.
And as we increasingly expand simple concepts like race or gender, it merely dilutes them to the point of pointlessness.
You mean that as we discover that not everything is black and white, nature tends to be infinite shades of grey, we should just give up and stick with black and white?
Just because the stupid end of society can't deal with grey doesn't mean the rest of us can't.
I use ethnicity for the most part just because of the silly destruction of the term race
The classical definition of race was only three groups, Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid. It is not pointless to introduce more granular classifications, if anything it helps us understand all the variations that exist among humanity. This is how science and progress works.
And I identify my gender as a Lamborghini Countach. Which makes my race as Gearhead.
The 767-200 was released in 1982. The 767 you buy today is not the 767-200.
It is neither computer nor software.
You might want to check how they build planes these days
It is a plane. US still flies B-52s (since 1955) and F-15s (since 1976).
Again, not the same planes that rolled off the floor. The name might be the same, but they have been heavily update since. There is only one An225, there have been no upgraded models released.
Yep — because Socialism of the USSR was not conductive to proper mass production.
So not advanced then...
If you want to use the short names of the countries, then it is, respectively: Holland, Congo-Kinshasa (or Congo-Brazzaville — in your ignorance, you aren't even aware there are two), Philippines, Bahamas. "The" may be part of a long name of a country, such as The Kingdom of The Netherlands...
You're an idiot. This was my exact point. People don't always use the exact official name of a country. Go back to Reddit...
You missed my point by chopping off what I said. Was that deliberate? It seems needlessly argumentative. The quote continued with "anyone who isn't a driver has virtually no control..."
They choose who they get in a car with.
We often have an illusion of complete control over our destiny when we are behind the wheel.
This is my point. We don't have complete control, but we have some control. Even as passengers we have a choice in who we drive with. And 'some control' has more emotional value than 'no control'.
Autonomous systems seem likely to reduce many of these common factors in the other cars on the road, so I suspect they will become more common if they in fact do so.
I agree that robot vehicles will have a place, but they will also introduce different problems, so the argument can't be reduced to 'less overall accidents equals win'.
If less overall accidents was the only deciding factor for people's transport choice, then this problem has already be solved by public transport.
however this is playing whack a mole and not coming to a practical economic solution.
Like speeding laws, this type of policy is not designed eliminate a particular behaviour altogether. Even with radar, speed cameras and random speed traps, people still speed right? Do you think the police should give up and just let everyone do what they like because people still speed?
By making it harder, you change the behaviour of the average person from casual offender, to premeditated, thus reducing the overall number of offenders. You also set a wider community expectation that this is not normal behaviour which which also has positive flow on effects.
Removing easier access has proven to reduce consumption, whether it be alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, speeding or torrents. Why wouldn't you as a rights holder being infringed upon try to implement such a strategy that has shown to reduce such behaviour?
Shooting foreigners isn't being racist, it's being xenophobic. Indians are Caucasian, by the way.
Only if your definition of race comes from the 19th century, which in itself is a little racist. These days race is a social or cultural construct, in which case this is quite clearly racism.
It would be xenophobic if there were an equal number of attacks of foreigners with blonde hair and blue eyes who speak English. Since there aren't, racist is a more accurate description.
What else do you need for a cargo plane other than the size — and the lift, which it also has aplenty?
Your original claim was that "Ukraine has some very advanced aircraft technology". The An225 is a Soviet era design, hardly what anyone in 2017 should call"advanced". It's big yes, but it's low tech, and only one was ever built.
There is no "the" in front of the country name. The Germany? The France?
The Netherlands, the Congo, the Philippines, the Bahamas etc...
Actually, other things being equal, a big SUV is safer than a small car.
Wrong.
An SUV might be safer to the people in the SUV in some cases (collision with a smaller object). But for everyone else they are worse off.
And the more people that buy SUVs makes them less and less safe since there is more chance of crashing into a bigger vehicle, and hence more impact overall.
The net position is that the more, bigger vehicles we all have, the less safe the roads become.
Because if robots take up a lot of jobs, then ALL the workforce is going to be fighting for the remaining few jobs and the value of labor will tank!
>
You're not going to wake up one day and suddenly 6 billion robots are ready to replace the entire globe's labour capacity. As with the industrial revolution, it will take time. And machines obviously can't do everything a human can, so new opportunities will arise (like mobile phone repair shops - what did all those people do for work 20 years ago?).
The automation revolution already started decades ago. The guy that used to drive the elevator or open the door, the guy that used to control traffic at intersections, or the girl at the checkout. If the change is gradual, the impact it will not be as severe as you think. And since there are millions of different jobs that humans do, they won't all be automated at exactly the same time.
But the idea that a bipedal robot is going to be able to...
I work in automation. How it will play out is that new transmission towers will be designed that can be built and deployed by a robot. And when it fails, the old one will simply be removed by a robot, and the build/deploy robot will replace the whole thing.
Slashdot Mirror
...and this test probably wouldn't work in Olympic pools since those swimmers are on rigorous diets...
You do know that an "Olympic pool" is referring to the size, not the fact that only Olympians can swim in them? For 99.99% of their life, an Olympic pool is used by regular pool pissing patrons.
No, he's saying that corporate programming managers are too timid to take risks.
It's hard to understand what's been lost if don't remember radio from when most radio stations were independently owned, and of course manually operated by an on-site engineer and broadcaster.
I'm almost the same age as Jay Z, and I used to work in Radio when I was a teenager. Even back then, we had one corporation that owned the top five radio stations in town. A top 40 station, a rock station, classics, talk, and easy listening.
Commercial radio has always been about advertising, even then. They simply covered all market segments so any they could target any ad to any age group. What has probably changed is that is no longer cost effective to run an expensive radio license for smaller niche market segments, so they drop off leaving the lowest common denominator, ie top 40.
you appealed to the authority of geneticists...
You are the gift that keeps on giving
im glad he wasn't driving a vehicle.
Imagine if was a real helicopter and it crashed into a crowd only resulting in mild concussion. He as pilot would be considered a hero.
OMG, appeal to authority is all you can do?
OMG? What, are you twelve?
You might also want read what Appeal to Authority means, since you clearly don't understand how it works...
Being in an SUV is safer than being in a small car, no matter what everyone else is buying.
You've changed the argument now. Being in an SUV might be safer than being in a smaller car. But SUVs are not safer overall than a small car (since a proportion of road deaths involve pedestrians and cyclists, who I assume would prefer to be hit by a small car than a small truck).
This may sound pedantic, but it's actually important since the SUV safety gimmick is based only on the occupants, not anyone else. And road safety should be about all of us. If you are interested in making roads safer for everyone, then the smaller vehicles are preferred.
Race as a social construct is very nice for psychologists, but tell me, is it bad to know that people originating from a certain area and subject to certain diseases by their genetics now forbidden knowledge? Is the very researching of this sort of thing racist?
Originating from a certain area isn't race. That is the point. How do you define race these days? It's not being from a certain area, since migration patterns throw this out the window. It's not the colour of their skin or their features since the variations are so large. So how do you define race in a scientifically useful way? And to bring it back on topic, how is this case of shooting an Indian that you thought was Arabic, not racist?
I, as a phone user, would fight this feature.
How would you fight it? By moaning loudly on internet forums?
The proposal is only a wipe. If this happened accidentally you can log back into icloud or your google account and resync. Crisis averted.
Personally I have no need for it, but if manufacturers built it in I wouldn't complain. It doesn't have to be compulsory, like most features it could be disabled.
Imagine a prankster or a drunk friend or a child getting your phone and trying this out.
How would they know the code?
Why not have a second PIN that opens a sanitized, but seemingly fully normal, home page? Missing a few critical apps, or having versions signed into a different account.
Because if the device is confiscated, a simple dump of the memory will reveal everything.
It does. It also illustrates your rather disappointing lack of humor.
It could just be that you aren't as funny as you think you are.
And it's where left wing, reshuffle everything idealists end up turning simple concepts into meaningless messes. And where you don't understand why when a decent majority of people believe in most of your concepts, you are adament about derailing the train for the least important matters.
And herein lies the point of your babble. A little rant about the left, or the democrats, or whoever it is you hate.
For the record I have no political leaning, both sides are as crazy as each other, so anyone attacking one, is clearly on the other and therefore to me just as crazy.
If you want the science, you can start here: https://www.scientificamerican...
Race is most certainly not a "social construct"
Scientific American disagrees with you. You'd better submit your disproof paper to them immediately.
Of course, you aren't — Blacks are given a pass by all your news-sources, when they discriminate or even murder based on race.
Probably because being based in a country on the other side of the world, my local media don't care about your local news, just as I'm sure yours don't report ours. Conspiracy averted, but your response says a lot about your ability to engage in a rational discussion.
No it's not. This is just ideological rhetoric.
Or Science. But I'm sure that won't change your mind...
So now downloading a movie is being compared to threats of public safety?
Good old internet, there's always someone looking for a fight for no reason...
If you wish to redefine the meaning of "race" (or "sex" for that matter), you need to change the law that bans discrimination based on it.
I'm not redefining it, I'm merely informing you that the definition of race has improved since the 19th century when everyone was either Caucasian, Negroid or Mongoloid
Funny, this argument — But I identify as Black! — didn't help certain Ms. Dolezal keep her job at, of all places, NAACP...
I'm not too familiar with the case but wiki tells me she resigned from her job because she had been caught lying about her background. While I'm sure activists from all sides use this case for whatever ideological reason, the fact is that lying and misconduct are real things that you can be fired for.
Evidently, some races — whatever the term means — are more equal than others.
Of course, because historically humans were more ignorant than today which created unequal societies. We try to fix this over time, but some people think that going back to the 'good old days , whenever they were supposed to be, will solve all of this.
And as we increasingly expand simple concepts like race or gender, it merely dilutes them to the point of pointlessness.
You mean that as we discover that not everything is black and white, nature tends to be infinite shades of grey, we should just give up and stick with black and white?
Just because the stupid end of society can't deal with grey doesn't mean the rest of us can't.
I use ethnicity for the most part just because of the silly destruction of the term race
The classical definition of race was only three groups, Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid. It is not pointless to introduce more granular classifications, if anything it helps us understand all the variations that exist among humanity. This is how science and progress works.
And I identify my gender as a Lamborghini Countach. Which makes my race as Gearhead.
That explains a lot.
Boeing 767 was also created in 1981
The 767-200 was released in 1982. The 767 you buy today is not the 767-200.
It is neither computer nor software.
You might want to check how they build planes these days
It is a plane. US still flies B-52s (since 1955) and F-15s (since 1976).
Again, not the same planes that rolled off the floor. The name might be the same, but they have been heavily update since. There is only one An225, there have been no upgraded models released.
Yep — because Socialism of the USSR was not conductive to proper mass production.
So not advanced then...
If you want to use the short names of the countries, then it is, respectively: Holland, Congo-Kinshasa (or Congo-Brazzaville — in your ignorance, you aren't even aware there are two), Philippines, Bahamas. "The" may be part of a long name of a country, such as The Kingdom of The Netherlands...
You're an idiot. This was my exact point. People don't always use the exact official name of a country. Go back to Reddit...
You missed my point by chopping off what I said. Was that deliberate? It seems needlessly argumentative. The quote continued with "anyone who isn't a driver has virtually no control..."
They choose who they get in a car with.
We often have an illusion of complete control over our destiny when we are behind the wheel.
This is my point. We don't have complete control, but we have some control. Even as passengers we have a choice in who we drive with. And 'some control' has more emotional value than 'no control'.
Autonomous systems seem likely to reduce many of these common factors in the other cars on the road, so I suspect they will become more common if they in fact do so.
I agree that robot vehicles will have a place, but they will also introduce different problems, so the argument can't be reduced to 'less overall accidents equals win'.
If less overall accidents was the only deciding factor for people's transport choice, then this problem has already be solved by public transport.
however this is playing whack a mole and not coming to a practical economic solution.
Like speeding laws, this type of policy is not designed eliminate a particular behaviour altogether. Even with radar, speed cameras and random speed traps, people still speed right? Do you think the police should give up and just let everyone do what they like because people still speed?
By making it harder, you change the behaviour of the average person from casual offender, to premeditated, thus reducing the overall number of offenders. You also set a wider community expectation that this is not normal behaviour which which also has positive flow on effects.
Removing easier access has proven to reduce consumption, whether it be alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, speeding or torrents. Why wouldn't you as a rights holder being infringed upon try to implement such a strategy that has shown to reduce such behaviour?
Shooting foreigners isn't being racist, it's being xenophobic. Indians are Caucasian, by the way.
Only if your definition of race comes from the 19th century, which in itself is a little racist. These days race is a social or cultural construct, in which case this is quite clearly racism.
It would be xenophobic if there were an equal number of attacks of foreigners with blonde hair and blue eyes who speak English. Since there aren't, racist is a more accurate description.
What else do you need for a cargo plane other than the size — and the lift, which it also has aplenty?
Your original claim was that "Ukraine has some very advanced aircraft technology". The An225 is a Soviet era design, hardly what anyone in 2017 should call"advanced". It's big yes, but it's low tech, and only one was ever built.
There is no "the" in front of the country name. The Germany? The France?
The Netherlands, the Congo, the Philippines, the Bahamas etc...
Actually, other things being equal, a big SUV is safer than a small car.
Wrong.
An SUV might be safer to the people in the SUV in some cases (collision with a smaller object). But for everyone else they are worse off.
And the more people that buy SUVs makes them less and less safe since there is more chance of crashing into a bigger vehicle, and hence more impact overall.
The net position is that the more, bigger vehicles we all have, the less safe the roads become.
Because if robots take up a lot of jobs, then ALL the workforce is going to be fighting for the remaining few jobs and the value of labor will tank!
>
You're not going to wake up one day and suddenly 6 billion robots are ready to replace the entire globe's labour capacity. As with the industrial revolution, it will take time. And machines obviously can't do everything a human can, so new opportunities will arise (like mobile phone repair shops - what did all those people do for work 20 years ago?).
The automation revolution already started decades ago. The guy that used to drive the elevator or open the door, the guy that used to control traffic at intersections, or the girl at the checkout. If the change is gradual, the impact it will not be as severe as you think. And since there are millions of different jobs that humans do, they won't all be automated at exactly the same time.
But the idea that a bipedal robot is going to be able to...
I work in automation. How it will play out is that new transmission towers will be designed that can be built and deployed by a robot. And when it fails, the old one will simply be removed by a robot, and the build/deploy robot will replace the whole thing.
The question I ask is who is the "we" the robots will serve? Humanity? Americans? Rich Americans?
What an absurd assumption. Since the robots are all being made in China, quite clearly the robots will all serve the Chinese Communist Party.
Don't be stickler, taking everything out of context just like the bleeding heart liberals, because it gives you a talking platform.
Hehe, ironic...