Also, the damages caused by fossil fuels must be weighed against the benefits. How much lives have been saved by the availability of abundant fuel? And what about the fact that thanks to fossil fuels, the air is actually cleaner than it was in the age of coal? Much, much cleaner.
People refrain from knocking down their house and rebuild not because of the value of the house, but because of the cost: in most cases, renovation is cheaper. In addition many countries have zoning laws that say you can't just knock down a house or build something new without a permit, and getting those permits can be a costly affair in itself.
What appreciates in value isn't the pile of bricks, it is ownership of a piece of land with the right to build a house there and live on it. The actual edifice does depreciate: people pay less for older houses that need a lot of work, the difference is approximately the cost of doing the necessary repairs and renovations.
My post was about whether or not the cops were following questionable orders. If instead the cop violated (reasonable) orders and shot at an urarmed victim while being too far away to properly assess the situation, then he should be punished. That was exactly the argument I made a few posts ago. Welcome to the conversation.
Depends on the orders. If the orders are "you may open fire if the situation presents a clear and present danger in the form of an armed suspect, and you have an opportunity to remove that danger", then there's not going to be some Nuremberg trials about human rights violations.
That depends. Did the cop act on orders and according to procedure? Then you can't really fault him for acting the way he did. If he did violate procedures, then some punishment is definitely in order. In any case, it would be a good idea to review the applicable procedures.
But all that doesn't get the caller or the one who hired him off the hook. It should be clear to both of them that SWATting is not a harmless prank but creates a volatile situation where death or serious harm are outcomes which are not at all unlikely. Since this case did result in a death, they deserve serious jail time.
So did you put in an extra battery (or perhaps a capacitor) to blink the "no power" indicator? Or did you go back and ask if they meant "low power" instead? It seems a lot of software engineers would pick the first option.
I use a simple magnetic Z-Wave door sensor to check if the doors are locked. Instead of using the sensor on the door, it triggers on a reed relay inside the deadbolt well, with a small magnet glued to the deadbolt. I use Z-wave stuff throughout the house, but no automatic door locks except on the shed (which unlocks when I am near). As for this vulnerability, I am not too worried. I expect we'll have the option soon to disable the S0 protocol completely. I'm far more worried about someone getting onto the WiFi and accessing the Z_Wave controlling hub.
The entire franchise is childish good vs. evil, sort of. What of it? And while The Force Awakens was derivative and something of a disappointment, I thought the Last Jedi was ok and was pleasantly surprised by Rogue One.
The guys who made that most certainly did NOT do so without the aid of drugs or alcohol. Watch the scene with princess Leia taking a video call: Fisher is clearly stoned out of her gourd, which kind of is the only rational way to cope with this... whatever it is. Also I didn't need to see Chewie's dad get off on virtual porn... The Rifftrax version is hilarious though.
Not now. But maybe in 10 years time sharing a deepfake porn of someone will be considered the equivalent of writing "Such-and-such sucks c*ock for a fiver" on the bathroom wall.
They are not trying to be convincing, they are bullying them. Perhaps not to ally with Russia, but most certainly to not align themselves any further with the EU or NATO
Exactly, and then there is also the nature of some the crashes. People might feel better about the kind of crash that would probably have been unavoidable with human drivers, compared to crashes that they feel the AI should have handled successfully because a human would have too. Running over a pedestrian suddenly running into the road from behind an obstacle, vs. running into the side of a clearly visible truck. Crashes where a human driver would be found blameless aren't really the kind that reduces faith in self driving cars.
That's the big issue with big data. And the danger is that perceived "racism" will be corrected with "affirmative action": by verifying the AI using statistics on the outcome, and applying a bias.
People with certain economic characteristics are statistically more likely to default on a loan. What if the AI applies such strictly relevant data to approve or reject loan applicants, but the rejected group happens to be predominantly of a certain race? Verification of the AI will show a (non causal) relation between race and loan applicant score, and since we don't know how the AI arrived at its decision, people will assume racism. Will the bank be forced to correct for this and extend loans to people of this race with terrible credit scores, just to make up the numbers?
In cases where we are worried about racism, perhaps AI simply isn't practical, and we're better off judging each individual case ourselves on imperfect but clearly defined criteria that are free of undesirable bias.
When a business in the US deals with businesses in such nations, there's a very good chance they're dealing with a foreign national who holds no allegiance to the Western nation they're taking advantage of
As a European, with some very serious doubts about the current level of immigration, the failure of many immigrants to integrate properly (for whatever reason that may be), and what the long term effects on our society will be, I still have to ask: where did you get this ridiculous notion?
Is it really that bad everywhere? I took buses around town a few years ago when visiting Austin. They were sort of clean and the people riding them seemed normal enough, if not especially affluent. Pretty much the same as buses back home in the Netherlands.
Modern cars do not produce all that much smog. In the old days, most smog came from wood or coal fueled furnaces, and these days open fires, fireplaces and BBQs produce more fine particulates than cars (esp. in countries that prefer gasoline over diesel, but even modern diesels are pretty clean). Even when measuring local air conditions, cars aren't that much of an issue anymore in the majority of cases.
Ever been to Europe? Many of the larger cities do have suburbs, and while they are less sprawling and (much) better served by public transport than those in the USA, most people living there still find themselves in need of owning a car. Even people in the cities themselves own cars for a variety of reasons: most often people find that travelling by car is faster and more convenient when travelling between cities or from and to the suburbs, even in heavy traffic.
Even for real emergencies you'll want to discriminate a little better. Remember the Gulf war? When the sirens warned of incoming missiles the first time, everyone could be seen taking cover under their desks donning gas masks. A few false alarms later and most people seemed to ignore the sirens. At the time I did some work on an early warning system and they were very keen to find a way to issue the warnings to the area at risk only, otherwise it's pointless.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that more relevant? Some bands produce decent albums, but make a poor or even terrible live act.
Yeah, I meant "oil & gas" instead of fossil fuels. That's what you get for editing your post and not reading it back before submitting...
Also, the damages caused by fossil fuels must be weighed against the benefits. How much lives have been saved by the availability of abundant fuel? And what about the fact that thanks to fossil fuels, the air is actually cleaner than it was in the age of coal? Much, much cleaner.
People refrain from knocking down their house and rebuild not because of the value of the house, but because of the cost: in most cases, renovation is cheaper. In addition many countries have zoning laws that say you can't just knock down a house or build something new without a permit, and getting those permits can be a costly affair in itself.
What appreciates in value isn't the pile of bricks, it is ownership of a piece of land with the right to build a house there and live on it. The actual edifice does depreciate: people pay less for older houses that need a lot of work, the difference is approximately the cost of doing the necessary repairs and renovations.
Your emergency supplies - which you surely have - should include some cash.
My post was about whether or not the cops were following questionable orders. If instead the cop violated (reasonable) orders and shot at an urarmed victim while being too far away to properly assess the situation, then he should be punished. That was exactly the argument I made a few posts ago. Welcome to the conversation.
Depends on the orders. If the orders are "you may open fire if the situation presents a clear and present danger in the form of an armed suspect, and you have an opportunity to remove that danger", then there's not going to be some Nuremberg trials about human rights violations.
That depends. Did the cop act on orders and according to procedure? Then you can't really fault him for acting the way he did. If he did violate procedures, then some punishment is definitely in order. In any case, it would be a good idea to review the applicable procedures.
But all that doesn't get the caller or the one who hired him off the hook. It should be clear to both of them that SWATting is not a harmless prank but creates a volatile situation where death or serious harm are outcomes which are not at all unlikely. Since this case did result in a death, they deserve serious jail time.
So did you put in an extra battery (or perhaps a capacitor) to blink the "no power" indicator? Or did you go back and ask if they meant "low power" instead? It seems a lot of software engineers would pick the first option.
I use a simple magnetic Z-Wave door sensor to check if the doors are locked. Instead of using the sensor on the door, it triggers on a reed relay inside the deadbolt well, with a small magnet glued to the deadbolt. I use Z-wave stuff throughout the house, but no automatic door locks except on the shed (which unlocks when I am near). As for this vulnerability, I am not too worried. I expect we'll have the option soon to disable the S0 protocol completely. I'm far more worried about someone getting onto the WiFi and accessing the Z_Wave controlling hub.
The entire franchise is childish good vs. evil, sort of. What of it? And while The Force Awakens was derivative and something of a disappointment, I thought the Last Jedi was ok and was pleasantly surprised by Rogue One.
The guys who made that most certainly did NOT do so without the aid of drugs or alcohol. Watch the scene with princess Leia taking a video call: Fisher is clearly stoned out of her gourd, which kind of is the only rational way to cope with this... whatever it is. Also I didn't need to see Chewie's dad get off on virtual porn... The Rifftrax version is hilarious though.
Whatever floats your boat
Not now. But maybe in 10 years time sharing a deepfake porn of someone will be considered the equivalent of writing "Such-and-such sucks c*ock for a fiver" on the bathroom wall.
They are not trying to be convincing, they are bullying them. Perhaps not to ally with Russia, but most certainly to not align themselves any further with the EU or NATO
A drunken self driving car...
Exactly, and then there is also the nature of some the crashes. People might feel better about the kind of crash that would probably have been unavoidable with human drivers, compared to crashes that they feel the AI should have handled successfully because a human would have too. Running over a pedestrian suddenly running into the road from behind an obstacle, vs. running into the side of a clearly visible truck. Crashes where a human driver would be found blameless aren't really the kind that reduces faith in self driving cars.
That's the big issue with big data. And the danger is that perceived "racism" will be corrected with "affirmative action": by verifying the AI using statistics on the outcome, and applying a bias.
People with certain economic characteristics are statistically more likely to default on a loan. What if the AI applies such strictly relevant data to approve or reject loan applicants, but the rejected group happens to be predominantly of a certain race? Verification of the AI will show a (non causal) relation between race and loan applicant score, and since we don't know how the AI arrived at its decision, people will assume racism. Will the bank be forced to correct for this and extend loans to people of this race with terrible credit scores, just to make up the numbers?
In cases where we are worried about racism, perhaps AI simply isn't practical, and we're better off judging each individual case ourselves on imperfect but clearly defined criteria that are free of undesirable bias.
Good artists imitate, great artists improve upon.
When a business in the US deals with businesses in such nations, there's a very good chance they're dealing with a foreign national who holds no allegiance to the Western nation they're taking advantage of
As a European, with some very serious doubts about the current level of immigration, the failure of many immigrants to integrate properly (for whatever reason that may be), and what the long term effects on our society will be, I still have to ask: where did you get this ridiculous notion?
Is it really that bad everywhere? I took buses around town a few years ago when visiting Austin. They were sort of clean and the people riding them seemed normal enough, if not especially affluent. Pretty much the same as buses back home in the Netherlands.
Modern cars do not produce all that much smog. In the old days, most smog came from wood or coal fueled furnaces, and these days open fires, fireplaces and BBQs produce more fine particulates than cars (esp. in countries that prefer gasoline over diesel, but even modern diesels are pretty clean). Even when measuring local air conditions, cars aren't that much of an issue anymore in the majority of cases.
Ever been to Europe? Many of the larger cities do have suburbs, and while they are less sprawling and (much) better served by public transport than those in the USA, most people living there still find themselves in need of owning a car. Even people in the cities themselves own cars for a variety of reasons: most often people find that travelling by car is faster and more convenient when travelling between cities or from and to the suburbs, even in heavy traffic.
Even for real emergencies you'll want to discriminate a little better. Remember the Gulf war? When the sirens warned of incoming missiles the first time, everyone could be seen taking cover under their desks donning gas masks. A few false alarms later and most people seemed to ignore the sirens. At the time I did some work on an early warning system and they were very keen to find a way to issue the warnings to the area at risk only, otherwise it's pointless.
with a cryptocurrency based economy
In other words: more con-men