The difference between Canadian jurisdictions implementing this kind of thing vs. US jurisdictions is that Canada properly funds its police departments and ticket revenue doesn't go directly to the police department, but into provincial coffers. Revenue from traffic citations doesn't comprise a significant amount of provincial revenue, so the public safety argument is actually the most feasible one.
Instead of asking if one-shot cures are a good business model, they should be asking if there should be a shift to a business model that's better for people...
The question shouldn't be "Is it ethical to purchase electronics from China?" Rather, the question should be "Are you willing to create an alternative and use that?"
Practically, ethics are an issue when one has a choice. When there's a need, but no choice, ethical considerations become hazy, at best. One can always revisit how much XYZ is a *need* vs. a *want*, but if we're talking about the practicality of operating in the modern world, those needs are often pretty real.
So long as the cost remains cheap, versus manufacturing electronics in your home country, employing your neighbours, don't expect the ethical question to play well with the public.
I think this article really overestimates the drive for quantum computing on a grand scale, and I don't think it was ever sold to use by the experts as something that we would actually see in "the foreseeable future". As such, that makes the author's premise disingenuous.
I always assumed we'd have optical computers long, LONG before a general-purpose quantum computer, and I don't think it's unreasonable to stand by that statement. That said, I don't think that warrants slowing down any resaerch towards quantum computers, no matter how daunting the scope.
Let's compare quantum computing to nuclear fusion: I doubt I'll see sustainable, controlled fusion in my lifetime. That doesn't negate the investment of billions upon billions of dollars into it, nor should it, but fusion's just as "foreseeable" as quantum computers.
So, instead of apologetics, how about pointing out that the statistic is meaningless? If outfits can choose that definition that suits their purposes, then what is actually being measured?
It's the same shit that you get with literacy rates. Sure, the US claims a 99% literacy rate, but what does that even mean? The OECD found that a solid 50% of Americans can't read at an 8th grade level yet, somehow, 99% of the people are literate..
Definitions just keep on getting revised to make people feel better about their lives. That way they don't have to actually take any responsibility for their share of the shitty situation they're in.
**IFF** these governments can show that they can install secure backdoors accessible only to law enforcement, *with the appropriate warrants and judicial oversight*, that cannot be subsequently hacked by nefarious actors, then, and only then, might I even *consider* whatever merits their argmuent may have.
100%. Cash has a certain anonymity to it, and I think we need to embrace anonymity more, not less, in society.
Of course, you'll have the "if you have nothing to hide..." folks not understanding the fact that *everyone* has something to hide, and that doesn't make them a criminal. If I want to buy a truckload of dildos, I may not want my neighbours, or government prudes, to know. that should be my right. As such, I'd prefer to pay cash.
Buying any stock entails *risk*. You're not entitled to the value of that stock to go up. If you buy a stock and it plummets because of shitty corporate policy, *you* invested in a company with shitty corporate policy. Eat your mistake.
Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty kind of covers any attempt by a private firm to make a claim of ownership: /
States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty...
In natural language processing polysemous words in a dictionary are often discerned with hashes. In the example above "with", with respect to "with graham crackers", would have one hash, whereas "with" with respect to "with my friend", would have a different hash. Through a well-developed NLP algorithm, and a lot of training, discerning between the two different contexts is certainly doable.
There's nothing paradoxical about the Fermi Paradox in the first place, so hinging a study on it is already wrought with problems.
The seeming lack of evidence for technologically advanced species out in space comes down to two problems: the speed of light and the inverse square law.
Think of humans being detected: we've had radio for just over a century, making any detectable radio transmissions detectable to a maximum of just over 100 light years (due to the speed of light). This assumes that such transmissions are sufficiently powerful to be detected above the background radio noise of the galaxy, and the further from Earth we go, the weaker those transmissions will be (due to the inverse square law).
As such, we need to be within detectable range of an advanced race, or they have to be within detectable range of us. As the distances to be covered are massive, the two above laws make it unlikely, without a massive revamping of our understanding of the nature of the universe, that any advanced races will ever detect each other.
We could be 500 light years from an advanced civilization and have absolutely no idea.
Personally, I think such probes should be mass-produced because there's no shortage of stuff in the solar system to go explore. Fire out a craft to land on the surface, deploy a small core sampler, and analyze its composition, comparing it to other "native" neighbouring asteroids...
This small rock will provide some lucky astronomers with an entire career's worth of knowledge and investigation. Gotta say, I'm kind of jealous.
The problem is those that pledged money by crowdfunding are the ones holding their dicks, not the company. The assets, the technologies, etc., this small startup created in the short time they were around *will* be sold off. Creditors will get their cut of *that* revenue, but the peons on Kickstarter and Indiegogo are left with less than nothing.
The US Supreme Court has ruled, on a number of occasions, that non-citizens are entitled to due process just the same as American citizens. Anyone want to weigh in on how this appellate court ruling will apply to non-American visitors?
It's not uncommon to find agricultural plots in the multiple-hundreds of acres, and plots are this large for a reason: anything smaller and you start losing the economies of scale. Sure, you can grow "high-density" with hydroponics, and with respect to a vertical farm it is "high-density", but with respect to the needs of a nearby city, a vertical farm is particularly low-density compared to farmland.
An acre is about 4 square kilometers. You'd need 25 floors of a vertical farm to equal 100 acres of farmland. That seems excessively costly for *just* 100 acres of growing space. The physical footprint, alone, is enormous, and the costs scale with the height of the building.
It *could* be useful with respect to growing out-of-market foods under controlled conditions, but I don't see this being a particularly cost-effective plan, generally, at least not until we've destroyed our farmland and this is the last remaining option.
Any president has a year of overlap with the previous one with respect to economics. Trump was elected in November, generally wouldn't pass a budget until about March, and then you have 2-3 quarters before those policies are enacted and the economy feels those policies in earnest. Trump dragged his feet with respect to his first budget, so that shifts the curve. When the economy finally caught up to Trump's big mouth, you not only saw a decline in the market but chaotic fluctuations not seen since the global economic crisis of 2008 and a short hiccup in late 2016/early-2016.
Dubya was able to relish in Clinton's strong economic policies, and Obama kicked off his term facing the aftermath of Dubya's poor economic policies. Trump exploited Obama's economic policies to a ridiculous level to the point of actually trying to take credit for the booming economy during his first year, yet with the Dow down more than 2000 points since Janauary, alone, where's President Shitgibbon to take credit for *that*?
Trump is going to run the country like any of his businesses, which is to say, drive it directly into the ground. We're talking about a man who whent bankrupt selling wine, steak and gambling to the American people. Nothing about that suggests he's a saavy businessman, let alone a capable politician.
At least the call is being made by Apple's own investors. That will have a much larger impact on corporate policy than if it were just "the people" griping about it.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference between Canadian jurisdictions implementing this kind of thing vs. US jurisdictions is that Canada properly funds its police departments and ticket revenue doesn't go directly to the police department, but into provincial coffers. Revenue from traffic citations doesn't comprise a significant amount of provincial revenue, so the public safety argument is actually the most feasible one.
Instead of asking if one-shot cures are a good business model, they should be asking if there should be a shift to a business model that's better for people...
The question shouldn't be "Is it ethical to purchase electronics from China?" Rather, the question should be "Are you willing to create an alternative and use that?"
Practically, ethics are an issue when one has a choice. When there's a need, but no choice, ethical considerations become hazy, at best. One can always revisit how much XYZ is a *need* vs. a *want*, but if we're talking about the practicality of operating in the modern world, those needs are often pretty real.
So long as the cost remains cheap, versus manufacturing electronics in your home country, employing your neighbours, don't expect the ethical question to play well with the public.
Wouldn't this just increase the chances of a Kuiper Belt planetoid if the total mass of Kuiper Belt objects was 10x that of Earth?
I think this article really overestimates the drive for quantum computing on a grand scale, and I don't think it was ever sold to use by the experts as something that we would actually see in "the foreseeable future". As such, that makes the author's premise disingenuous.
I always assumed we'd have optical computers long, LONG before a general-purpose quantum computer, and I don't think it's unreasonable to stand by that statement. That said, I don't think that warrants slowing down any resaerch towards quantum computers, no matter how daunting the scope.
Let's compare quantum computing to nuclear fusion: I doubt I'll see sustainable, controlled fusion in my lifetime. That doesn't negate the investment of billions upon billions of dollars into it, nor should it, but fusion's just as "foreseeable" as quantum computers.
That's where I saw it too...That made the rounds pretty quick .
"10 minutes doesn't give you too much time to correct yourself. But it's a lot better than having your mistakes preserved eternally."
You can bet your ass they'll be preserved eternally, they may just not be *public*.
So, instead of apologetics, how about pointing out that the statistic is meaningless? If outfits can choose that definition that suits their purposes, then what is actually being measured?
It's the same shit that you get with literacy rates. Sure, the US claims a 99% literacy rate, but what does that even mean? The OECD found that a solid 50% of Americans can't read at an 8th grade level yet, somehow, 99% of the people are literate..
Definitions just keep on getting revised to make people feel better about their lives. That way they don't have to actually take any responsibility for their share of the shitty situation they're in.
**IFF** these governments can show that they can install secure backdoors accessible only to law enforcement, *with the appropriate warrants and judicial oversight*, that cannot be subsequently hacked by nefarious actors, then, and only then, might I even *consider* whatever merits their argmuent may have.
I won't hold my breath.
It would appear you're choosing to support *corporate* welfare queens.
100%. Cash has a certain anonymity to it, and I think we need to embrace anonymity more, not less, in society.
Of course, you'll have the "if you have nothing to hide..." folks not understanding the fact that *everyone* has something to hide, and that doesn't make them a criminal. If I want to buy a truckload of dildos, I may not want my neighbours, or government prudes, to know. that should be my right. As such, I'd prefer to pay cash.
Buying any stock entails *risk*. You're not entitled to the value of that stock to go up. If you buy a stock and it plummets because of shitty corporate policy, *you* invested in a company with shitty corporate policy. Eat your mistake.
Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty kind of covers any attempt by a private firm to make a claim of ownership:
/
States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty...
Where's the debate?
There's so substantive change here. You don't make a 20-year veteran of the company the CEO and expect much to be different.
In natural language processing polysemous words in a dictionary are often discerned with hashes. In the example above "with", with respect to "with graham crackers", would have one hash, whereas "with" with respect to "with my friend", would have a different hash. Through a well-developed NLP algorithm, and a lot of training, discerning between the two different contexts is certainly doable.
There's nothing paradoxical about the Fermi Paradox in the first place, so hinging a study on it is already wrought with problems.
The seeming lack of evidence for technologically advanced species out in space comes down to two problems: the speed of light and the inverse square law.
Think of humans being detected: we've had radio for just over a century, making any detectable radio transmissions detectable to a maximum of just over 100 light years (due to the speed of light). This assumes that such transmissions are sufficiently powerful to be detected above the background radio noise of the galaxy, and the further from Earth we go, the weaker those transmissions will be (due to the inverse square law).
As such, we need to be within detectable range of an advanced race, or they have to be within detectable range of us. As the distances to be covered are massive, the two above laws make it unlikely, without a massive revamping of our understanding of the nature of the universe, that any advanced races will ever detect each other.
We could be 500 light years from an advanced civilization and have absolutely no idea.
Personally, I think such probes should be mass-produced because there's no shortage of stuff in the solar system to go explore. Fire out a craft to land on the surface, deploy a small core sampler, and analyze its composition, comparing it to other "native" neighbouring asteroids...
This small rock will provide some lucky astronomers with an entire career's worth of knowledge and investigation. Gotta say, I'm kind of jealous.
The problem is those that pledged money by crowdfunding are the ones holding their dicks, not the company. The assets, the technologies, etc., this small startup created in the short time they were around *will* be sold off. Creditors will get their cut of *that* revenue, but the peons on Kickstarter and Indiegogo are left with less than nothing.
The US Supreme Court has ruled, on a number of occasions, that non-citizens are entitled to due process just the same as American citizens. Anyone want to weigh in on how this appellate court ruling will apply to non-American visitors?
I think the bigger issue isn't how such an AI will behave, but how humans will react to such a development.
Humans have a pretty poor history dealing with different *humans*, so I don't think a self-aware AI is in for a warm reception.
It's not uncommon to find agricultural plots in the multiple-hundreds of acres, and plots are this large for a reason: anything smaller and you start losing the economies of scale. Sure, you can grow "high-density" with hydroponics, and with respect to a vertical farm it is "high-density", but with respect to the needs of a nearby city, a vertical farm is particularly low-density compared to farmland. An acre is about 4 square kilometers. You'd need 25 floors of a vertical farm to equal 100 acres of farmland. That seems excessively costly for *just* 100 acres of growing space. The physical footprint, alone, is enormous, and the costs scale with the height of the building. It *could* be useful with respect to growing out-of-market foods under controlled conditions, but I don't see this being a particularly cost-effective plan, generally, at least not until we've destroyed our farmland and this is the last remaining option.
Or supervise your children...Though I'm of the mind that the trauma of a dead child is appropriate punishment for being a shitty parent.
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords!
Any president has a year of overlap with the previous one with respect to economics. Trump was elected in November, generally wouldn't pass a budget until about March, and then you have 2-3 quarters before those policies are enacted and the economy feels those policies in earnest. Trump dragged his feet with respect to his first budget, so that shifts the curve. When the economy finally caught up to Trump's big mouth, you not only saw a decline in the market but chaotic fluctuations not seen since the global economic crisis of 2008 and a short hiccup in late 2016/early-2016.
Dubya was able to relish in Clinton's strong economic policies, and Obama kicked off his term facing the aftermath of Dubya's poor economic policies. Trump exploited Obama's economic policies to a ridiculous level to the point of actually trying to take credit for the booming economy during his first year, yet with the Dow down more than 2000 points since Janauary, alone, where's President Shitgibbon to take credit for *that*?
Trump is going to run the country like any of his businesses, which is to say, drive it directly into the ground. We're talking about a man who whent bankrupt selling wine, steak and gambling to the American people. Nothing about that suggests he's a saavy businessman, let alone a capable politician.
At least the call is being made by Apple's own investors. That will have a much larger impact on corporate policy than if it were just "the people" griping about it.