How do we get the right to prosecute a foreign national doing things in a foreign country that are protected by our own first amendment? Really don't understand this.
1) The first amendment covers you if you're given secret documents and republish them, it doesn't cover you if you solicit those documents and aid in their extraction. Assange did both of those things. This came up a while back when a journalist (I think Maddow) asked viewers to send her Trumps tax returns (not the partial return she published). The fact she solicited the documents meant she could have been charged if someone sent her the tax returns and she published them, while another journalist would have been in the clear.
2) If you fire a missile at Ecuador from the US then Ecuador will certainly try to extradite you, similarly if you hack into their military database and steal a bunch of their classified intel. Just because you're not in a country doesn't mean you can't commit a crime against that country and have them try to charge and extradite you.
Heck, if you insult the King of Thailand online they could presumably charge you and try to extradite, of course no other country is going to honour that extradition request. And it's not certain that Sweden or London would honour the US's extradition request if Assange ended up in one of those nations.
Now, the third thing that this legislation does is it brings down the cost of health care for families and businesses and the federal government. Americans who are buying comparable coverage in the individual market would end up seeing their premiums go down 14 to 20 percent. Americans who get their insurance through the workplace, cost savings could be as much as $3,000 less per employer than if we do nothing. Now, think about that. Thatâ(TM)s $3,000 your employer doesnâ(TM)t have to pay, which means maybe she can afford to give you a raise.
Maybe I am misreading, but it sure seems like President Obama is saying there that everybody's costs (premiums for families) were going to go down. While I know of plenty of people getting raises after the recent Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts helped boost the economy, I have never heard of a single person getting a raise from their employer because of all the money Obamacare saved them.
This kind of BS discredits the entire scientific community.
I think the causal implication is a bit junky but a correlation isn't implausible.
Black coffee and bitter foods are both things that create a bit of culinary conflict, one of the reasons to consume them is to create a strong sensation even if it's a bit unpleasant.
Psychopaths and sadists are also people who tend to seek out stronger sensations, psychopaths because they have muted emotions and sadists because they enjoy the discomfort.
If this correlation is legit I'd expect sociopaths and sadists to enjoy spicy food as well.
I volunteer at my local library and they have a Vive that anyone over 10 years old can just walk up and put on. They have a smallish selection of games and demos.
I often spend afternoons helping people put on the headset and try out the experience. They all agree that it is awesome. They all agree that they love it. Only the kids feel like it is sufficient reason to go to the library all by itself.
Usually it gets less than three hours a day usage. Sometimes less than one.
I agree that the lack of a killer app or AAA titles is hurting.
VR's problem isn't the lack of AAA titles. It's the lack of game ideas that would be fun enough to justify a AAA title.
It's a fundamentally different kind of gaming experience and no one really understands how to make a great game for it yet. Is it a walking simulator where you're in an alien environment? A strategy game were you float over the field of play? What are the controls like? What style of animation?
They need to explore the idea space until they find stuff a concept that works, and once that happens game studios will start turning those concepts into AAA games.
The problem is that Gab is filling a niche that Twitter has forced open through bans, and disproportionately just that niche.
I'm not sure that's true. It is true that many more people from the right have been banned, but the right is home to much more virulent rhetoric at this point. I've also seen complaints from people on the left that progressives are being banned for relatively benign things while people on the right are able to get away with extreme content.
The mail bomber Sayoc threatened multiple people on Twitter, they complained to Twitter, and he never got banned.
I think the process is just too random to accurately detect bias on Twitter's part.
Throw in the existing persecution complex of those groups and you've got a recipe for trouble, because you've created an even stronger echo chamber for the worst elements.
That is true. Ideally you'd find some way to encourage them to behave civilly but there doesn't seem to be an easy fix for that. And I don't know how you kick off the extremists without the exiled extremists gathering together somewhere else.
Oh, wait,/. is a US joint. Ok, forget about what I said.
And now attention: Getting modded into earths core in 3,2,1...:-)
Virtually anyone running an actual production system.
I hope IBM keeps them pretty separate. One of the reasons RHEL is so successful is they've done a good job of maintaining a good relationship with the hobbyist crowd. They're not as cool as Ubuntu but they have a lot of fans in the community, both devs and users, and that helps them get into the server rooms.
Probably Red Hat's biggest liability has been their size, the more Free Software aligned crowd is very nervous about big corporations. If they ever start losing the community some other distro is going to start popping up in the server room.
Fedora is fully owned by Red Hat and CentOS requires the availability of the Red Hat repositories which they aren't obliged to make public to non-customers..
Fedora is fully under Red Hat's control. It's used as a bleeding edge distro for hobbyists and as a testing ground for code before it goes into RHEL. I doubt its going away since it does a great job of establishing mindshare but no business in their right mind is going to run Fedora in production.
But CentOS started as a separate organization with a fairly adversarial relationship to Red Hat since it really is free RHEL which cuts into their actual customer base. They didn't need Red Hat repos back then, just the code which they rebuilt from scratch (which is why they were often a few months behind).
If IBM kills CentOS a new one will pop up in a week, that's the beauty of the GPL.
the issue with Gab is that it explicitly allows speech that Paypal does not.
No, the issue is that Gab takes the platform / common carrier position while facebook and twitter exercise a degree of editorial control. This means that Gab is not liable for hosted content while facebook and twitter are.
That might be their official position but a little context is required.
Gab was started as a direct response to alt-right and white supremacist personalities getting kicked off of Twitter, it's the White Supremacist Twitter.
It doesn't really matter what their official policies are, they're a social networking company created to serve an extremely controversial community, they can't pretend extremists on their platform are some random unfortunate situation no one could have predicted.
Exactly, neither one of you have READ THE STUDY YET! https://jamanetwork.com/journa... Why would you ALREADY have pre-formed conclusions about it? Exactly.
Actually I did read the study, though I don't really have the training (or time) to fully understand everything they did I understood enough to validate that. a) They did a good job trying to control for other variables. b) They couldn't control for everything because it's really tough to do.
The point isn't that their research is useless, a 25-ish% drop in cancer is really significant. The point is that this study alone doesn't provide the answers that people want. They found a big correlation between organic food consumption and lower cancer rates, now future studies can start narrowing in on that. Was it the organic food and something in the non-organic pesticides? Was it the types of food that organic food eaters eat? Was it another lifestyle choice that correlates with organic food consumption.
These studies are really hard to do. I know they tried to control for a lot of stuff but people who eat organic are generally people who not only try to live a healthy lifestyle, but actually spend more money to do it.
I hate to say it, but I suspect this just shows that the most important part of being an artist is marketing. I doubt their AI is really all that great and probably more complex attempts at similar things have been tried. Especially considering it is coming from an art collective rather than a coding collective. Look at Banksy. Nothing really that Blek leRat or others haven't already done, but they have a nice collection of people helping them to promote and make the news. Oh well, they hit the jackpot. I hope their cool people deserving of it.
I'm not sure that's quite right.
The most important part of art is creating meaning and an emotional response, and marketing is one of the tools that can create that.
A crude finger painting by an adult is completely unremarkable and un-artistic, unless that adult was born 40,000 years ago.
A photograph can be interesting or dull, but a photo-realistic painting is going to draw far more attention for the skill it implies on the artists part.
Banksy and Blek leRat aren't famous because they're technically skilled artists, they're famous because of their message and how they choose to spread it. Banksy is more famous because he does a better job of spreading that message. When he put his painting through a shredder at auction? That was a fantastic piece of performance art. And it made his art more interesting by enhancing his perceived authenticity and creating a more interesting backstory to his character.
There's no objectively great art, it's all subjective. There's lots people with the talent to make a really nice looking painting, but to make something really fascinating you need some additional context.
Plastics go in, plastics go out? Whats the problem? Do they get into the blood stream? Do they degrade in the body and produce toxins?
Some go out, we don't really know if they all go out. And even if they all go out we don't really know everything they do along the way. Do they produce toxins, produce bio-active molecules, or even have a physical effect on biological processes?
My understanding is that most researchers think they're benign... but there's a lot of weird byproducts of our modern economy making it into our bodies, it's hard to imagine there are no negative consequences.
They aren't archiving all the ISIS posts? ISIS had 100s of accounts all spamming terrorist propaganda 24/7 basically Obama's whole second term. Can we get an archive of THAT? Started around 2013 when John Brennan became CIA director, and ended around 2017 when Trump took over and replaced Brennan with Pompeo.
What are ISIS posts? Posts by people claiming to be official members of ISIS? People in Syria who seem to be posting pro-ISIS propaganda? What about people who seem to be from other similar groups? What about the ISIS fanboys? ISIS posts actually ends up being a lot harder to define than you realize.
The Russian and Iranian bots however, that's relatively straightforward. Groups affiliated with the Russian and Iranian governments make a set of bots, and these bots network together and generate comments. Once you find the networks and figure out what bot posts look like you can identify the bots and publish their tweets.
Why can't someone in one of the following vehicles be remotely driving the front one? This would at least force an attacker to make a lucky guess where the human is, and that human can also take over control of one of the other vehicles (even if it's just the one they're in) to peel the surviving convoy members away.
As I said, that's probably in the plans for the future, but this is just version 1 testing out the concept. If follow-the-leader doesn't work in practice with a human driving the first vehicle then there's no point in developing the remote piloting system for the lead vehicle.
"'Leader-Follower' technology will enable convoys of autonomous vehicles to follow behind one driven by a human, It's a direct response to the improvised explosive devices that caused nearly half the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Umm...wouldn't it be smarter if the unmanned vehicles were in front of the one driven by a human? I mean, they'll hit the IED first...
Yes. But also a lot harder to pull off since the front car would need to be an almost fully antonymous vehicle. This way all the secondary cars need to do is play follow-the-leader where the leader is a human driver.
A future version will probably have a fully antonymous convoy, or at least one driven remotely, but this is what they can pull off with current tech.
No matter what Trump does, someone will complain. He could achieve permanent world peace, and half the US would complain he's decimating the defense industry and costing jobs.
He can do good things, the problem is he and his administration have also proven himself to be very dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent. So if he announces permanent world peace you need to check that he's actually talking about this planet.
And if he's announces that he's going to withdraw from a major international postal treaty you need to check that: a) This is a concrete action and not an announcement that will be forgotten 5 minutes later. b) It's competently thought out and doesn't turn into a counter-productive gong show. c) He isn't just throwing a tantrum because he likes the idea of leaving international agreements and causing a mess. d) There isn't some aspect to this that will turn out to profit him immensely.
I mean, maybe this will turn out to be a good idea... but he lost the benefit of the doubt a very long time ago.
I'm admitting that I just looked at the summary. So assuming it's accurate...
Why is it that so many people misunderstand the purpose of electric cars? I don't know why for years now on Slashdot we keep getting posts about articles that nitpick about electric car manufacturing. "Ooh, at one place in your manufacturing chain for 1 second you involved coal, so the whole idea is trash." No it's not. First of all, electric cars don't burn gasoline. Big win there. Reducing petroleum use is a Good Thing. Second, with time electricity sources to both charge said vehicles and produce the batteries could come from renewable sources. The fact that we aren't there today doesn't mean we won't be there soon enough. Having production lines in place to make these vehicles is smart and when the production sources are from renewable energy, what will they complain about next?
Well what is the purpose then?
The way I see it, if you're going to get a new car then buying an electric vehicle pushes the technology along and may be slightly better for the environment.
Though, if you're looking to minimize your environmental impact (while still driving) then the old advice is still the best advice, get a smaller used car and run it into the ground.
Which is just a version how the best advice on how to reduce your environmental impact in general, the less money you spend the smaller your environmental impact.
The new trick that people are trying to figure out is how to reduce the environmental impact while spending a lot of money and getting nice things. The electric car is part of that game.
The problem here is that the things that Frank and George really want to buy with their newfound money are education and healthcare. Both of those systems are supply constrained, just like housing in San Fransisco, and so giving people more money will make those services more expensive, because it didn't make any more of those services.
How are education and healthcare supply side constrained? If there's more demand for teachers, doctors, and nurses we'll just train more teachers, doctors, and nurses.
In the context of a UBI some labour will shift from servicing the rich (art curators, lawyers, accountants, etc) towards the fields mentioned above.
Yeah residential schools, funny how many natives actually do and still support them and believe they should come back.
Again, you're repeating this assertion without evidence. It's common knowledge that the Residential Schools were considered a injustice inflicted on the Native population. If you're going to claim some sot of wide spread support for residential schools among natives you need to back it up.
So after all of this... you think a bit of Government money is to blame for their problems?
Indirectly yes. And it's not an uncommon belief among natives that "have left the reservation."
There's a big difference between reservations (which include government money) and a UBI. The trouble with reservations is there's no real economic opportunities. They're typically not great farm land, and few Aboriginal populations had farming traditions, much less western ones. They're not near mineral resources, and they're not large enough to perform manufacturing or other higher level industries.
Comparable non-native communities either become ghost towns or all but a few of the youth move to the cities, but reservations stick around since there are incentives to staying and moving to a city means moving to a white community.
If anything it's an argument for the UBI as the reservations represent current assistance programs (that you lose when you gain income/employment) while a UBI would represent a benefit that would stay with you off the reservation.
To mangle an old expression, you're blaming the deck chair arrangement for the sinking of the Titanic.
Well you sure did mangle it. But why not look at the actions, what the previous government(Harper) did in an attempt to gain accountability and the current government(Trudeau) which screeched that it was racist and we'll go from there.
That was about corruption and mismanagement by band leadership. Which seems an odd argument for you to make if you're trying to pin their woes on UBI-like incentives.
I think it might be the centuries of genocide against the Indigenous / Aboriginal Peoples of Canada, and not the government living up to any treaties obligations that is responsible for what you see in Canada. Residential schools, Indian hospitals, Sixties Scoop, the list goes on and on.
Really? So when the natives were genociding themselves, raping, enslaving each other and other people did the same thing it was suddenly whitey's fault? Hey whatever I guess, I mean it's not like there wasn't historical evidence that natives from other bands would take women captive, rape them until pregnant then kill them after giving birth or anything. Such a great shining cultural ethos and all that, and really plays well with the peaceful natives bit.
You surely must be able to recognize the difference between people from similar cultures fighting among themselves using rules and norms that developed over thousands of years and the insane cultural upheaval that North American Aboriginal populations endured when Europeans came over.
Shouldn't be surprised by that comment especially with the garbage they teach in school these days.
Hooray for random "I'm a Conservative male resentful that future generations are starting to view some of my beliefs as outdated and offensive" signalling.
Oh, and Canada does live up to it's treaty obligations..funny thing about that say compared to the US for example.
So?
The point of the treaties is they're the mechanism we used to get the vast majority of their land without openly conquering it in warfare, if we didn't use treaties we simply would have passed a law saying "we conquered this land and these are the terms by which you can still live here". In some ways it might have been better since the treaties allowed us to avoid a lot of initial bloodshed, but their lopsided and unfair nature has bred a lot of ongoing resentment and source of conflict.
And of course don't forget that natives seem to think that the residential school program was actually a good idea.
Do you actually have any polls to back this up, because I honestly looked and couldn't even find someone who had posed the question.
Were there individual natives that had good experiences in the residential schools? Of course.
Did the residential schools have some good intentions? Definitely.
But overall, I think the consensus among the Canadian Aboriginal population is that the residential schools were a terrible thing for the kids and the communities from which they were taken.
I mean your point was the collapse of their society and culture, yet you ignored a program that literally took their children against their will and tried to give them a different culture!!
Or the bands that believe that all of the treaties should be voided because it creates a culture where cronyism and abuse are normalized.
I'm not arguing for or against the Reservation system nor the treaties as a whole, I'm just pointing out the insanity of using the state of Canada's aboriginal populations as some sort of argument against a UBI.
It's actually a shame since you might have stumbled on an interesting natural experiment. Different bands would have different conditions based on their treaty history, a careful researcher might actually tease out the effects of those government interventions by comparing communities.
But Sue doesn't have an effective monopoly, she still has competitors like Mary who are also trying to sell to Frank and George and will undercut her if she tries to gouge.
Yes. And Mary can do that even now, without UBI. This is definitely not an argument for UBI.
That comment wasn't an argument for UBI.
It was pointing out why you were incorrect to think the UBI would be eaten by a price hike from Sue.
40+ years and trillions of dollars after Johnson declared war on poverty and here we are wondering how to enslave more generations in poverty with even more expensive schemes.
If people want to see where this gets them, just look up here to Canada. ~100 years of the federal government paying natives under treaty, and it's effectively collapsed their entire culture and society. Laziness is an inherent human trait, and without something that pushes large swaths of society to improve themselves it just all goes screaming downhill.
They were discovered by a vastly more technologically advanced society and promptly decimated by post-contact diseases, losing up to 90% of their population. They were introduced to alcohol which they had neither genetic nor cultural adoptions to, not to mention the reality they were second class people in their own land. They were exploited by one-sided treaty agreements and forced off of their ancestral lands onto reservations where they couldn't practise their traditional nomadic lifestyle nor have access to modern employment opportunities.
Oh, and as children many were taken from their communities against their will and put into Residential Schools that had the express purpose of trying to erase their indigenous identities.
So after all of this... you think a bit of Government money is to blame for their problems?
To mangle an old expression, you're blaming the deck chair arrangement for the sinking of the Titanic.
Sue is rich not because she got $10k, decided that was enough and stopped. She's rich because she was already charging Frank and George the highest prices she could.
Exactly my point. Sue was charging Frank and George highest prices she could. Now she can charge them more, because they have more money.
But Sue doesn't have an effective monopoly, she still has competitors like Mary who are also trying to sell to Frank and George and will undercut her if she tries to gouge.
That's the point I was trying to make, the driver of wealth inequality isn't from firms gouging their customers, it's from firms being able to underpay their workers.
Sue works as before, but she gets less. To achieve previous standard, she asks more (higher prices) from Frank and George. She can do that, because both of them can afford to pay higher prices, as they both have higher income. Later the system will find new equilibrium like OLD_PRICES + $1000.
Sue is rich not because she got $10k, decided that was enough and stopped. She's rich because she was already charging Frank and George the highest prices she could.
Now there's going to be some inflationary effect on the prices Frank and George pay, but Mary is also trying to sell them things and if Sue jacks her prices up too high then Mary will steal the market by undercutting Sue.
There's a lot of reason to thing the economy isn't functioning well when it comes to the wages of Frank and George, wages are set by the median firm more than the median employee. The median firm is fairly small with neutral profitability while the median employee works for a big and highly profitable firm. That means there aren't a lot of rich firms to bid up wages so Frank and George's wages are set by poor firms even though they work for rich firms.
But when it comes to prices the rich firm still has to compete against the median firm, so they're really constrained in their pricing. That's why the economy still tends to function fairly well in lowering prices and Sue wouldn't be able to jack up her prices.
Slashdot Mirror
How do we get the right to prosecute a foreign national doing things in a foreign country that are protected by our own first amendment? Really don't understand this.
1) The first amendment covers you if you're given secret documents and republish them, it doesn't cover you if you solicit those documents and aid in their extraction. Assange did both of those things. This came up a while back when a journalist (I think Maddow) asked viewers to send her Trumps tax returns (not the partial return she published). The fact she solicited the documents meant she could have been charged if someone sent her the tax returns and she published them, while another journalist would have been in the clear.
2) If you fire a missile at Ecuador from the US then Ecuador will certainly try to extradite you, similarly if you hack into their military database and steal a bunch of their classified intel. Just because you're not in a country doesn't mean you can't commit a crime against that country and have them try to charge and extradite you.
Heck, if you insult the King of Thailand online they could presumably charge you and try to extradite, of course no other country is going to honour that extradition request. And it's not certain that Sweden or London would honour the US's extradition request if Assange ended up in one of those nations.
You do realize this was an attack specifically against people who did make the effort to vote, right?
Yes, but they were judged more likely to vote Democrat, and therefore not deserving of the vote according to Brian Kemp.
Now, the third thing that this legislation does is it brings down the cost of health care for families and businesses and the federal government. Americans who are buying comparable coverage in the individual market would end up seeing their premiums go down 14 to 20 percent. Americans who get their insurance through the workplace, cost savings could be as much as $3,000 less per employer than if we do nothing. Now, think about that. Thatâ(TM)s $3,000 your employer doesnâ(TM)t have to pay, which means maybe she can afford to give you a raise.
Maybe I am misreading, but it sure seems like President Obama is saying there that everybody's costs (premiums for families) were going to go down. While I know of plenty of people getting raises after the recent Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts helped boost the economy, I have never heard of a single person getting a raise from their employer because of all the money Obamacare saved them.
Care to comment?
I think you are misreading, he wasn't talking about a drop in premiums as much as a drop in the rate of increase in premiums.
I don't know what the numbers come out to, but it certainly seems like employers are paying less than they would have in the pre-ACA system.
This kind of BS discredits the entire scientific community.
I think the causal implication is a bit junky but a correlation isn't implausible.
Black coffee and bitter foods are both things that create a bit of culinary conflict, one of the reasons to consume them is to create a strong sensation even if it's a bit unpleasant.
Psychopaths and sadists are also people who tend to seek out stronger sensations, psychopaths because they have muted emotions and sadists because they enjoy the discomfort.
If this correlation is legit I'd expect sociopaths and sadists to enjoy spicy food as well.
I volunteer at my local library and they have a Vive that anyone over 10 years old can just walk up and put on. They have a smallish selection of games and demos.
I often spend afternoons helping people put on the headset and try out the experience. They all agree that it is awesome. They all agree that they love it. Only the kids feel like it is sufficient reason to go to the library all by itself.
Usually it gets less than three hours a day usage. Sometimes less than one.
I agree that the lack of a killer app or AAA titles is hurting.
VR's problem isn't the lack of AAA titles. It's the lack of game ideas that would be fun enough to justify a AAA title.
It's a fundamentally different kind of gaming experience and no one really understands how to make a great game for it yet. Is it a walking simulator where you're in an alien environment? A strategy game were you float over the field of play? What are the controls like? What style of animation?
They need to explore the idea space until they find stuff a concept that works, and once that happens game studios will start turning those concepts into AAA games.
The problem is that Gab is filling a niche that Twitter has forced open through bans, and disproportionately just that niche.
I'm not sure that's true. It is true that many more people from the right have been banned, but the right is home to much more virulent rhetoric at this point. I've also seen complaints from people on the left that progressives are being banned for relatively benign things while people on the right are able to get away with extreme content.
The mail bomber Sayoc threatened multiple people on Twitter, they complained to Twitter, and he never got banned.
I think the process is just too random to accurately detect bias on Twitter's part.
Throw in the existing persecution complex of those groups and you've got a recipe for trouble, because you've created an even stronger echo chamber for the worst elements.
That is true. Ideally you'd find some way to encourage them to behave civilly but there doesn't seem to be an easy fix for that. And I don't know how you kick off the extremists without the exiled extremists gathering together somewhere else.
Oh, wait, /. is a US joint. Ok, forget about what I said.
And now attention: ... :-)
Getting modded into earths core in 3,2,1
Virtually anyone running an actual production system.
I hope IBM keeps them pretty separate. One of the reasons RHEL is so successful is they've done a good job of maintaining a good relationship with the hobbyist crowd. They're not as cool as Ubuntu but they have a lot of fans in the community, both devs and users, and that helps them get into the server rooms.
Probably Red Hat's biggest liability has been their size, the more Free Software aligned crowd is very nervous about big corporations. If they ever start losing the community some other distro is going to start popping up in the server room.
Fedora is fully owned by Red Hat and CentOS requires the availability of the Red Hat repositories which they aren't obliged to make public to non-customers..
Fedora is fully under Red Hat's control. It's used as a bleeding edge distro for hobbyists and as a testing ground for code before it goes into RHEL. I doubt its going away since it does a great job of establishing mindshare but no business in their right mind is going to run Fedora in production.
But CentOS started as a separate organization with a fairly adversarial relationship to Red Hat since it really is free RHEL which cuts into their actual customer base. They didn't need Red Hat repos back then, just the code which they rebuilt from scratch (which is why they were often a few months behind).
If IBM kills CentOS a new one will pop up in a week, that's the beauty of the GPL.
No, the issue is that Gab takes the platform / common carrier position while facebook and twitter exercise a degree of editorial control. This means that Gab is not liable for hosted content while facebook and twitter are.
That might be their official position but a little context is required.
Gab was started as a direct response to alt-right and white supremacist personalities getting kicked off of Twitter, it's the White Supremacist Twitter.
It doesn't really matter what their official policies are, they're a social networking company created to serve an extremely controversial community, they can't pretend extremists on their platform are some random unfortunate situation no one could have predicted.
Exactly, neither one of you have READ THE STUDY YET! https://jamanetwork.com/journa... Why would you ALREADY have pre-formed conclusions about it? Exactly.
Actually I did read the study, though I don't really have the training (or time) to fully understand everything they did I understood enough to validate that.
a) They did a good job trying to control for other variables.
b) They couldn't control for everything because it's really tough to do.
The point isn't that their research is useless, a 25-ish% drop in cancer is really significant. The point is that this study alone doesn't provide the answers that people want. They found a big correlation between organic food consumption and lower cancer rates, now future studies can start narrowing in on that. Was it the organic food and something in the non-organic pesticides? Was it the types of food that organic food eaters eat? Was it another lifestyle choice that correlates with organic food consumption.
These studies are really hard to do. I know they tried to control for a lot of stuff but people who eat organic are generally people who not only try to live a healthy lifestyle, but actually spend more money to do it.
You'd expect them to have a lower cancer rate.
I hate to say it, but I suspect this just shows that the most important part of being an artist is marketing. I doubt their AI is really all that great and probably more complex attempts at similar things have been tried. Especially considering it is coming from an art collective rather than a coding collective. Look at Banksy. Nothing really that Blek leRat or others haven't already done, but they have a nice collection of people helping them to promote and make the news. Oh well, they hit the jackpot. I hope their cool people deserving of it.
I'm not sure that's quite right.
The most important part of art is creating meaning and an emotional response, and marketing is one of the tools that can create that.
A crude finger painting by an adult is completely unremarkable and un-artistic, unless that adult was born 40,000 years ago.
A photograph can be interesting or dull, but a photo-realistic painting is going to draw far more attention for the skill it implies on the artists part.
Banksy and Blek leRat aren't famous because they're technically skilled artists, they're famous because of their message and how they choose to spread it. Banksy is more famous because he does a better job of spreading that message. When he put his painting through a shredder at auction? That was a fantastic piece of performance art. And it made his art more interesting by enhancing his perceived authenticity and creating a more interesting backstory to his character.
There's no objectively great art, it's all subjective. There's lots people with the talent to make a really nice looking painting, but to make something really fascinating you need some additional context.
Plastics go in, plastics go out? Whats the problem?
Do they get into the blood stream? Do they degrade in the body and produce toxins?
Some go out, we don't really know if they all go out. And even if they all go out we don't really know everything they do along the way. Do they produce toxins, produce bio-active molecules, or even have a physical effect on biological processes?
My understanding is that most researchers think they're benign... but there's a lot of weird byproducts of our modern economy making it into our bodies, it's hard to imagine there are no negative consequences.
They aren't archiving all the ISIS posts? ISIS had 100s of accounts all spamming terrorist propaganda 24/7 basically Obama's whole second term. Can we get an archive of THAT? Started around 2013 when John Brennan became CIA director, and ended around 2017 when Trump took over and replaced Brennan with Pompeo.
What are ISIS posts? Posts by people claiming to be official members of ISIS? People in Syria who seem to be posting pro-ISIS propaganda? What about people who seem to be from other similar groups? What about the ISIS fanboys? ISIS posts actually ends up being a lot harder to define than you realize.
The Russian and Iranian bots however, that's relatively straightforward. Groups affiliated with the Russian and Iranian governments make a set of bots, and these bots network together and generate comments. Once you find the networks and figure out what bot posts look like you can identify the bots and publish their tweets.
Why can't someone in one of the following vehicles be remotely driving the front one? This would at least force an attacker to make a lucky guess where the human is, and that human can also take over control of one of the other vehicles (even if it's just the one they're in) to peel the surviving convoy members away.
As I said, that's probably in the plans for the future, but this is just version 1 testing out the concept. If follow-the-leader doesn't work in practice with a human driving the first vehicle then there's no point in developing the remote piloting system for the lead vehicle.
"'Leader-Follower' technology will enable convoys of autonomous vehicles to follow behind one driven by a human, It's a direct response to the improvised explosive devices that caused nearly half the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Umm...wouldn't it be smarter if the unmanned vehicles were in front of the one driven by a human? I mean, they'll hit the IED first...
Yes. But also a lot harder to pull off since the front car would need to be an almost fully antonymous vehicle. This way all the secondary cars need to do is play follow-the-leader where the leader is a human driver.
A future version will probably have a fully antonymous convoy, or at least one driven remotely, but this is what they can pull off with current tech.
No matter what Trump does, someone will complain. He could achieve permanent world peace, and half the US would complain he's decimating the defense industry and costing jobs.
He can do good things, the problem is he and his administration have also proven himself to be very dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent. So if he announces permanent world peace you need to check that he's actually talking about this planet.
And if he's announces that he's going to withdraw from a major international postal treaty you need to check that:
a) This is a concrete action and not an announcement that will be forgotten 5 minutes later.
b) It's competently thought out and doesn't turn into a counter-productive gong show.
c) He isn't just throwing a tantrum because he likes the idea of leaving international agreements and causing a mess.
d) There isn't some aspect to this that will turn out to profit him immensely.
I mean, maybe this will turn out to be a good idea... but he lost the benefit of the doubt a very long time ago.
I'm admitting that I just looked at the summary. So assuming it's accurate...
Why is it that so many people misunderstand the purpose of electric cars? I don't know why for years now on Slashdot we keep getting posts about articles that nitpick about electric car manufacturing. "Ooh, at one place in your manufacturing chain for 1 second you involved coal, so the whole idea is trash." No it's not. First of all, electric cars don't burn gasoline. Big win there. Reducing petroleum use is a Good Thing. Second, with time electricity sources to both charge said vehicles and produce the batteries could come from renewable sources. The fact that we aren't there today doesn't mean we won't be there soon enough. Having production lines in place to make these vehicles is smart and when the production sources are from renewable energy, what will they complain about next?
Well what is the purpose then?
The way I see it, if you're going to get a new car then buying an electric vehicle pushes the technology along and may be slightly better for the environment.
Though, if you're looking to minimize your environmental impact (while still driving) then the old advice is still the best advice, get a smaller used car and run it into the ground.
Which is just a version how the best advice on how to reduce your environmental impact in general, the less money you spend the smaller your environmental impact.
The new trick that people are trying to figure out is how to reduce the environmental impact while spending a lot of money and getting nice things. The electric car is part of that game.
The problem here is that the things that Frank and George really want to buy with their newfound money are education and healthcare. Both of those systems are supply constrained, just like housing in San Fransisco, and so giving people more money will make those services more expensive, because it didn't make any more of those services.
How are education and healthcare supply side constrained? If there's more demand for teachers, doctors, and nurses we'll just train more teachers, doctors, and nurses.
In the context of a UBI some labour will shift from servicing the rich (art curators, lawyers, accountants, etc) towards the fields mentioned above.
Yeah residential schools, funny how many natives actually do and still support them and believe they should come back.
Again, you're repeating this assertion without evidence. It's common knowledge that the Residential Schools were considered a injustice inflicted on the Native population. If you're going to claim some sot of wide spread support for residential schools among natives you need to back it up.
So after all of this... you think a bit of Government money is to blame for their problems?
Indirectly yes. And it's not an uncommon belief among natives that "have left the reservation."
There's a big difference between reservations (which include government money) and a UBI. The trouble with reservations is there's no real economic opportunities. They're typically not great farm land, and few Aboriginal populations had farming traditions, much less western ones. They're not near mineral resources, and they're not large enough to perform manufacturing or other higher level industries.
Comparable non-native communities either become ghost towns or all but a few of the youth move to the cities, but reservations stick around since there are incentives to staying and moving to a city means moving to a white community.
If anything it's an argument for the UBI as the reservations represent current assistance programs (that you lose when you gain income/employment) while a UBI would represent a benefit that would stay with you off the reservation.
To mangle an old expression, you're blaming the deck chair arrangement for the sinking of the Titanic.
Well you sure did mangle it. But why not look at the actions, what the previous government(Harper) did in an attempt to gain accountability and the current government(Trudeau) which screeched that it was racist and we'll go from there.
That was about corruption and mismanagement by band leadership. Which seems an odd argument for you to make if you're trying to pin their woes on UBI-like incentives.
I think it might be the centuries of genocide against the Indigenous / Aboriginal Peoples of Canada, and not the government living up to any treaties obligations that is responsible for what you see in Canada. Residential schools, Indian hospitals, Sixties Scoop, the list goes on and on.
Really? So when the natives were genociding themselves, raping, enslaving each other and other people did the same thing it was suddenly whitey's fault? Hey whatever I guess, I mean it's not like there wasn't historical evidence that natives from other bands would take women captive, rape them until pregnant then kill them after giving birth or anything. Such a great shining cultural ethos and all that, and really plays well with the peaceful natives bit.
You surely must be able to recognize the difference between people from similar cultures fighting among themselves using rules and norms that developed over thousands of years and the insane cultural upheaval that North American Aboriginal populations endured when Europeans came over.
Shouldn't be surprised by that comment especially with the garbage they teach in school these days.
Hooray for random "I'm a Conservative male resentful that future generations are starting to view some of my beliefs as outdated and offensive" signalling.
Oh, and Canada does live up to it's treaty obligations..funny thing about that say compared to the US for example.
So?
The point of the treaties is they're the mechanism we used to get the vast majority of their land without openly conquering it in warfare, if we didn't use treaties we simply would have passed a law saying "we conquered this land and these are the terms by which you can still live here". In some ways it might have been better since the treaties allowed us to avoid a lot of initial bloodshed, but their lopsided and unfair nature has bred a lot of ongoing resentment and source of conflict.
And of course don't forget that natives seem to think that the residential school program was actually a good idea.
Do you actually have any polls to back this up, because I honestly looked and couldn't even find someone who had posed the question.
Were there individual natives that had good experiences in the residential schools? Of course.
Did the residential schools have some good intentions? Definitely.
But overall, I think the consensus among the Canadian Aboriginal population is that the residential schools were a terrible thing for the kids and the communities from which they were taken.
I mean your point was the collapse of their society and culture, yet you ignored a program that literally took their children against their will and tried to give them a different culture!!
Or the bands that believe that all of the treaties should be voided because it creates a culture where cronyism and abuse are normalized.
I'm not arguing for or against the Reservation system nor the treaties as a whole, I'm just pointing out the insanity of using the state of Canada's aboriginal populations as some sort of argument against a UBI.
It's actually a shame since you might have stumbled on an interesting natural experiment. Different bands would have different conditions based on their treaty history, a careful researcher might actually tease out the effects of those government interventions by comparing communities.
But Sue doesn't have an effective monopoly, she still has competitors like Mary who are also trying to sell to Frank and George and will undercut her if she tries to gouge.
Yes. And Mary can do that even now, without UBI. This is definitely not an argument for UBI.
That comment wasn't an argument for UBI.
It was pointing out why you were incorrect to think the UBI would be eaten by a price hike from Sue.
40+ years and trillions of dollars after Johnson declared war on poverty and here we are wondering how to enslave more generations in poverty with even more expensive schemes.
If people want to see where this gets them, just look up here to Canada. ~100 years of the federal government paying natives under treaty, and it's effectively collapsed their entire culture and society. Laziness is an inherent human trait, and without something that pushes large swaths of society to improve themselves it just all goes screaming downhill.
They were discovered by a vastly more technologically advanced society and promptly decimated by post-contact diseases, losing up to 90% of their population. They were introduced to alcohol which they had neither genetic nor cultural adoptions to, not to mention the reality they were second class people in their own land. They were exploited by one-sided treaty agreements and forced off of their ancestral lands onto reservations where they couldn't practise their traditional nomadic lifestyle nor have access to modern employment opportunities.
Oh, and as children many were taken from their communities against their will and put into Residential Schools that had the express purpose of trying to erase their indigenous identities.
So after all of this... you think a bit of Government money is to blame for their problems?
To mangle an old expression, you're blaming the deck chair arrangement for the sinking of the Titanic.
Sue is rich not because she got $10k, decided that was enough and stopped. She's rich because she was already charging Frank and George the highest prices she could.
Exactly my point. Sue was charging Frank and George highest prices she could. Now she can charge them more, because they have more money.
But Sue doesn't have an effective monopoly, she still has competitors like Mary who are also trying to sell to Frank and George and will undercut her if she tries to gouge.
That's the point I was trying to make, the driver of wealth inequality isn't from firms gouging their customers, it's from firms being able to underpay their workers.
Sue works as before, but she gets less. To achieve previous standard, she asks more (higher prices) from Frank and George. She can do that, because both of them can afford to pay higher prices, as they both have higher income. Later the system will find new equilibrium like OLD_PRICES + $1000.
Sue is rich not because she got $10k, decided that was enough and stopped. She's rich because she was already charging Frank and George the highest prices she could.
Now there's going to be some inflationary effect on the prices Frank and George pay, but Mary is also trying to sell them things and if Sue jacks her prices up too high then Mary will steal the market by undercutting Sue.
There's a lot of reason to thing the economy isn't functioning well when it comes to the wages of Frank and George, wages are set by the median firm more than the median employee. The median firm is fairly small with neutral profitability while the median employee works for a big and highly profitable firm. That means there aren't a lot of rich firms to bid up wages so Frank and George's wages are set by poor firms even though they work for rich firms.
But when it comes to prices the rich firm still has to compete against the median firm, so they're really constrained in their pricing. That's why the economy still tends to function fairly well in lowering prices and Sue wouldn't be able to jack up her prices.