A) Intelligent life is so unlikely to occur that humanity is the only example in all the universe; or
B) We (as well other intelligent life) aren't yet advanced enough to span the vast distances of space between us and whatever other intelligent life which inevitably came into/will come into existence.
The former requires something to have happened against odds so large the human brain can't even begin to grasp them - the scale of the universe undermines the argument. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily wrong, but it does mean that the odds of it being right are pretty close to the odds the argument itself requires be overcome for intelligent life to exist even on Earth.
Looking at it from an Occam's Razor perspective, the universe being so large that we haven't had the chance to run into other intelligent life is a much simpler answer than any hypothesis that would attempt to explain how intelligent life on earth managed to buck such incredibly stacked odds.
And even if the planetary orbits are stable, the orbits of objects in those stars' equivalents of the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud would definitely not be, resulting in far more meteor activity on any potentially life supporting planets.
Assuming this is a real line of thought, it demonstrates why the police should not be determining what is and is not legal. The fact is that crime ratesgo down when cannabis is legalized.
You're a damned fool if you value technological "progress" and "innovation" more than your own ability to provide for yourself and your family.
Also, you might want to actually read that article you linked to. This is not a case of a public good being destroyed by people acting in their own best interest. It is a case of people being skeptical that those who are pushing advances have considered the consequences of their actions, and that those who hold all the resources will be at all interested in providing a livelihood for those people that these advances impoverish. It seems to me to be a pretty healthy skepticism based on knowledge of history and economics.
Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see a Star Trek type society where people are free to pursue their interests rather than be tied to work that is unfulfilling and unhealthy. But I have yet to see any sort of credible plan to get us there. Technology is not the only barrier, and it's idiotic to pretend that it is.
50 miles of underwater cable is a whole lot less of a barrier than a bunch of sovereign nations, a huge ass desert, an assortment of mountain ranges, and a Mediterranean crossing.
It is sad that people are so weak in imagination or indoctrinated into the existing system that they can't imagine how we might manage a future in which fewer, or eventually no, people have to work.
I don't think anyone has a problem imagining that world. I think they have a problem imagining how we could possibly get to such a world. The big problem is that the incentive for implementing automation is to not have to spend the money on workers. If the owners of the means of production aren't willing to pay people to do work, why on earth would you expect that they'd be willing to pay people to NOT do work?
Self driving will be an unreliable novelty until major road improvements are made.
The self driving will remain an unreliable novelty. We can barely fund the repair work needed bring our worst roads up to current standards. Major improvements to all roads to make them easier for automated vehicles that may or may not be coming? Flying cars will happen first.
1) You don't get to decide what work other people should find to be a waste of one's existence. Plenty of people would rather not have to deal with coworkers or customers, and like time on the road.
2) As much as I'd like to live in a word where automation makes it possible for everyone to live without worrying about where the money for food, rent, utilities, etc comes from, we're not on that path. The people whose jobs get automated don't get taken care of - they get screwed. And I don't see any reason to think that's going to change any time soon.
If supply is high enough then demand falls and prices follow.
That's... not how it works at all. If supply is high enough, prices fall and demand rises. If supply is too low, prices rise and demand falls. If supply is low, and demand is high, prices rise.
The real issue is that there is sufficient demand for high end luxury housing that it is crowding out lower-margin housing that middle income people can afford. That, too, can be addressed with changes in permitting, but that runs into two problems: 1) It faces opposition from "free market" purists, who insist we accept market failures as a price of "free" markets, and 2) Permitting is handled at the local level, so if Seattle requires construction of more affordable units than investors want to build, they will simply build their luxury units elsewhere to get the higher return on investment dollar.
It's just another example of how markets can fail when dealing with necessities, or when dealing with something that the wealthy can pay a lot more for.
When the net amount of money going into federal coffers from a state is greater than the amount coming back, and another state gets more from federal expenditures than they send in taxes, the second state is being subsidized by the first state. And guess what - most blue states send more than they receive, and most red states receive more than they send.
And much of Poland was part of Prussia for hundreds, and the eastern seaboard of the US was part of the UK for well over a century. Historical ownership doesn't justify illegal annexation.
I disagree. America has become successful in part because of good Infrastructure like the interstate hiway system. Getting everyone online should be the next step.
The Interstate Highway System is a prime example of "the gov't stepping in"...
The Iran Nuclear deal is an example of a treaty that gives everyone involved something while giving nothing to the US.
The only reason the Iran deal didn't open the Iranian market to the US is that the US refuses to participate in it. As for that "pinky promise", it was a lot more than a promise. It was a very intrusive and nearly impossible to game inspection regime that ensured that Iran remained within the terms of the deal - which they have.
Slashdot Mirror
Do the same for Venus with heat resistant bacteria.
Don't forget the immense atmospheric pressure and sulphuric acid rain.
Which makes more sense?
A) Intelligent life is so unlikely to occur that humanity is the only example in all the universe; or
B) We (as well other intelligent life) aren't yet advanced enough to span the vast distances of space between us and whatever other intelligent life which inevitably came into/will come into existence.
The former requires something to have happened against odds so large the human brain can't even begin to grasp them - the scale of the universe undermines the argument. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily wrong, but it does mean that the odds of it being right are pretty close to the odds the argument itself requires be overcome for intelligent life to exist even on Earth.
Looking at it from an Occam's Razor perspective, the universe being so large that we haven't had the chance to run into other intelligent life is a much simpler answer than any hypothesis that would attempt to explain how intelligent life on earth managed to buck such incredibly stacked odds.
And even if the planetary orbits are stable, the orbits of objects in those stars' equivalents of the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud would definitely not be, resulting in far more meteor activity on any potentially life supporting planets.
Freedom to be an asshole doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of being an asshole.
Assuming this is a real line of thought, it demonstrates why the police should not be determining what is and is not legal. The fact is that crime rates go down when cannabis is legalized.
And a republic is when the sheep get to vote for which wolf is going to choose what's for dinner.
You're a damned fool if you value technological "progress" and "innovation" more than your own ability to provide for yourself and your family.
Also, you might want to actually read that article you linked to. This is not a case of a public good being destroyed by people acting in their own best interest. It is a case of people being skeptical that those who are pushing advances have considered the consequences of their actions, and that those who hold all the resources will be at all interested in providing a livelihood for those people that these advances impoverish. It seems to me to be a pretty healthy skepticism based on knowledge of history and economics.
Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see a Star Trek type society where people are free to pursue their interests rather than be tied to work that is unfulfilling and unhealthy. But I have yet to see any sort of credible plan to get us there. Technology is not the only barrier, and it's idiotic to pretend that it is.
50 miles of underwater cable is a whole lot less of a barrier than a bunch of sovereign nations, a huge ass desert, an assortment of mountain ranges, and a Mediterranean crossing.
+1 Insightful
It is sad that people are so weak in imagination or indoctrinated into the existing system that they can't imagine how we might manage a future in which fewer, or eventually no, people have to work.
I don't think anyone has a problem imagining that world. I think they have a problem imagining how we could possibly get to such a world. The big problem is that the incentive for implementing automation is to not have to spend the money on workers. If the owners of the means of production aren't willing to pay people to do work, why on earth would you expect that they'd be willing to pay people to NOT do work?
Self driving will be an unreliable novelty until major road improvements are made.
The self driving will remain an unreliable novelty. We can barely fund the repair work needed bring our worst roads up to current standards. Major improvements to all roads to make them easier for automated vehicles that may or may not be coming? Flying cars will happen first.
1) You don't get to decide what work other people should find to be a waste of one's existence. Plenty of people would rather not have to deal with coworkers or customers, and like time on the road.
2) As much as I'd like to live in a word where automation makes it possible for everyone to live without worrying about where the money for food, rent, utilities, etc comes from, we're not on that path. The people whose jobs get automated don't get taken care of - they get screwed. And I don't see any reason to think that's going to change any time soon.
They will still have to navigate normal roads
Huh? Most trucks aren't allowed on normal roads.
You'll need to provide a link for that. In every state I've ever lived in, trucks can go anywhere that isn't specifically marked "No Trucks".
Trump isn't technically a Democrat OR a Republican
Huh? He absolutely is a Republican. And the rank and file of the party agrees - to the tune of a 90% approval rating among people who identify as Republicans.
If supply is high enough then demand falls and prices follow.
That's ... not how it works at all. If supply is high enough, prices fall and demand rises. If supply is too low, prices rise and demand falls. If supply is low, and demand is high, prices rise.
The real issue is that there is sufficient demand for high end luxury housing that it is crowding out lower-margin housing that middle income people can afford. That, too, can be addressed with changes in permitting, but that runs into two problems: 1) It faces opposition from "free market" purists, who insist we accept market failures as a price of "free" markets, and 2) Permitting is handled at the local level, so if Seattle requires construction of more affordable units than investors want to build, they will simply build their luxury units elsewhere to get the higher return on investment dollar.
It's just another example of how markets can fail when dealing with necessities, or when dealing with something that the wealthy can pay a lot more for.
When the net amount of money going into federal coffers from a state is greater than the amount coming back, and another state gets more from federal expenditures than they send in taxes, the second state is being subsidized by the first state. And guess what - most blue states send more than they receive, and most red states receive more than they send.
This is something you could use.
How to Avoid Arguing in Bad Faith
Yup. He shoulda said "one-fifth as many".
And much of Poland was part of Prussia for hundreds, and the eastern seaboard of the US was part of the UK for well over a century. Historical ownership doesn't justify illegal annexation.
Russia was kicked out of the G8 as punishment for democratically electing Putin.
Nice try, Yuri. Russia was removed in 2014 - shortly after their illegal annexation of Crimea. Putin's last election was two years before that.
Unless the gov't steps in that will never change.
I disagree. America has become successful in part because of good Infrastructure like the interstate hiway system. Getting everyone online should be the next step.
The Interstate Highway System is a prime example of "the gov't stepping in" ...
Meanwhile during the war the chemical weapons people say Suddam didn't have were used on U.S. troops.
I'm sure you've got a legitimate source for that, and aren't just parroting propaganda yourself.
Trump could cure cancer,
I doubt it.
elevate world hunger,
That one I could believe.
and invent weather control
Which he would use to ensure that his golf courses were always sunny, and the competition's would always have thunderstorms over them.
The Iran Nuclear deal is an example of a treaty that gives everyone involved something while giving nothing to the US.
The only reason the Iran deal didn't open the Iranian market to the US is that the US refuses to participate in it. As for that "pinky promise", it was a lot more than a promise. It was a very intrusive and nearly impossible to game inspection regime that ensured that Iran remained within the terms of the deal - which they have.
Or "-1 Demonstrably False"