It's still a lot more reliable than asking "are you 18?".
To who? Legitimate businesses can get a lot more failures to conduct business, since customers would not always have the card ID ready at hand. While on the other hand, anyone can click "Yes". And as I noted earlier, just asking the question above does not create a bunch of opportunity for credit card fraud.
Then this requires some way to prove that the owner of a website is also the owner of a valid merchant account. This is a service that the credit card companies can in theory offer.
For varying definitions of successfully contained given all the radiation that poured into the ocean and polluted soil for miles around the plant. Let us also not forget that they were warned to raise their generators higher off the ground. The new specifications would have prevent the failure in the first place and we'd still have a nuclear power pant if they had spent the money when it mattered.
"Warned" by who? And how credible were these warnings? I know you think you know the difference between foresight and hindsight. But you don't. You have to understand when people knew what and how fast a very conservative bureaucracy responds to newly exposed risks.
Here's my understanding of the timeline for the tsunami risk assessment. From previous discussions on Slashdot, I gather it was realized before the earthquake that the risk of much higher tsunami had been underestimated. But this risk wasn't even revealed till 2001 (that's the oldest reference anyone has given me).
Then the various nuclear plants were instructed to review this risk some point after that with TEPCO completing their assessment of the Fukushima plant some point around 2008 or 2009. At that point, apparently, it was determined that the plant did not have adequate sea walls for the worst case.
At this point, you have various complicating factors such as the planned closure of these reactors over the next decade and the fact that nobody in the nuclear industry moves fast.
It is much like the levies in Louisiana that flooded the whole city. The army core of engineers had already recommended improvements that were not performed because nobody wanted to spent the few million it would have taken. So instead we spent 10s of billions cleaning up the mess.
Except that those risks have been known for a long time and the risk of New Orleans getting directly hit by a strong hurricane remain considerably higher than eastern Japan getting hit by very high tsunami. New Orleans still faces that same risk despite the levee upgrades.
For example, if a hurricane stalls over New Orleans, then it'll be just as flooded as it was that time. It's also worth noting that they still have the habit of appointing the sort of irresponsible leadership that led to the high loss of life in the Katrina disaster.
The thing is, while there's evidence that the decision to permanently scuttle the reactors was delayed somewhat, there's no similar evidence that interference from "execs" materially delayed that. Else, you wouldn't be speaking in vague generalities.
What site? What merchant account? What written promise? One doesn't need any of those to profitably exploit credit card numbers say by creating fake websites and harvesting numbers.
Another alternative here is that you can acquire your viewpoint of reality through some other means than the current whim of a politician. I just fail to see the value of the argument that some dude who is a "local governor" happens to have an opinion on the Fukushima accident.
The idea isn't to charge them with the cause of the disaster, but with more than a little incompetence that they displayed afterwards - not to mention the often blatant lies they told to the public during the aftermath. Examples include publicly chewing out the Daiichi site supervisor for using seawater to keep the surviving reactors cooled down when that was pretty much all he had to use (given the alternative? Yeah, I'd piss on the things if it helped). Other examples include sending needed cooling water to the Daini site... in drinking water bottles. There's a whole host of other bork-ups, and the blame for the vast majority of them lies squarely on the execs in Tokyo.
So what? What's so special about your accusations that the level of "blame" rises to that of public humiliation? I think instead we see here a prime example of why the culture of responsibility, that Japan is or perhaps was famous for, has such a hard time taking root on "this side of this Pacific". Namely, that a certain culture is far more interested in assigning blame even to the point of blowing minor missteps out of proportion such as you do above, than in taking responsibility or respecting those who do.
And I find it interesting how you respond to a post about witch hunts with arguments based on water bottles. That veers into self-parody.
That's what markets are for. If there's a high demand for robot operators in the medical industry, then more people will sign up for the money. That assumes that the cartels controlling access to the medical professions don't block this.
You might have a point if his argument was something more nuanced than "it's hard and I don't understand how it will ever work" with a few marketing = boogeyman slams thrown in for good measure.
So because you can't understand it, it must not be of any consequence?
If you're spouting such straw man platitudes, then you don't know enough about quantum computers to condemn someone else. In the defense of the previous poster, I'll note that there are a number of phenomena that permeate all of the Solar System (gravity, neutrinos, and thermal radiation) that may place an upper bound on the reliability of quantum computing no matter how magical your technology is.
You tell me. I'm not you, I don't know why you do the things you do. I'm not trying to tell you why you did something. I'm just telling you what you did.
Since I didn't do what you are "telling" me I did, and you are now claiming that you didn't imply this either, then there's no point to this thread. We can communicate or we can imagine things of other people. I'd rather communicate.
I fear it's something ingrained in humanity, so long as we have the capacity to imagine, it seems possible to become deluded in this particular way given the right conditions.
I think it starts with the idea that one knows best usually combined with a ridiculously oversimplified model of how things work.
Yeah so? Doesn't mean you can't be ALSO predicting a die off. It's not a false dilemma.
Why would I be predicting that? To claim that die-offs are necessary for prosperity is in my view a non sequitur, another sort of fallacy.
China is wealthier and better off than before. Doesn't mean there wasn't a whole lot of dying off on its way here.
Correlation doesn't imply causation. And really, die offs are associated in Chinese history with chaotic periods which don't have prosperity.
Exactly, and I'm saying you have pointed out how there are many people right here on slashdot who show all the signs of walking right into those screw ups, making things a lot worse before they could get better.
That's a lot of vague talk. What are "many people"? What are "screw ups"? And what is "better" versus "lot worse"?
And in other nations, it's a faction of what you spend in the USA.
For the OECD, it's 35% (from countries like Mexico and Estonia) to 70% of the US's spending per GDP (France and Netherlands). It's considerably better than the absolute worst, but it's still a big and growing problem.
Or you can have both or neither. There are four states after all, depending on which bits you set. Note here that by definition, democratic republics decide a number of things by collective agreement.
It could be a bit better I suppose. But really, what is stable about the current public spending schemes? There isn't a stable public pension fund out there in the developed world, for example. Medical care takes an increasing portion of the developed world's economies. Businesses become more and more risk clueless due to (often highly profitable) government nannying.
Slashdot Mirror
It's still a lot more reliable than asking "are you 18?".
To who? Legitimate businesses can get a lot more failures to conduct business, since customers would not always have the card ID ready at hand. While on the other hand, anyone can click "Yes". And as I noted earlier, just asking the question above does not create a bunch of opportunity for credit card fraud.
How many customers will look?
Then this requires some way to prove that the owner of a website is also the owner of a valid merchant account. This is a service that the credit card companies can in theory offer.
And a service that a fraudster can fake.
For varying definitions of successfully contained given all the radiation that poured into the ocean and polluted soil for miles around the plant. Let us also not forget that they were warned to raise their generators higher off the ground. The new specifications would have prevent the failure in the first place and we'd still have a nuclear power pant if they had spent the money when it mattered.
"Warned" by who? And how credible were these warnings? I know you think you know the difference between foresight and hindsight. But you don't. You have to understand when people knew what and how fast a very conservative bureaucracy responds to newly exposed risks.
Here's my understanding of the timeline for the tsunami risk assessment. From previous discussions on Slashdot, I gather it was realized before the earthquake that the risk of much higher tsunami had been underestimated. But this risk wasn't even revealed till 2001 (that's the oldest reference anyone has given me).
Then the various nuclear plants were instructed to review this risk some point after that with TEPCO completing their assessment of the Fukushima plant some point around 2008 or 2009. At that point, apparently, it was determined that the plant did not have adequate sea walls for the worst case.
At this point, you have various complicating factors such as the planned closure of these reactors over the next decade and the fact that nobody in the nuclear industry moves fast.
It is much like the levies in Louisiana that flooded the whole city. The army core of engineers had already recommended improvements that were not performed because nobody wanted to spent the few million it would have taken. So instead we spent 10s of billions cleaning up the mess.
Except that those risks have been known for a long time and the risk of New Orleans getting directly hit by a strong hurricane remain considerably higher than eastern Japan getting hit by very high tsunami. New Orleans still faces that same risk despite the levee upgrades.
For example, if a hurricane stalls over New Orleans, then it'll be just as flooded as it was that time. It's also worth noting that they still have the habit of appointing the sort of irresponsible leadership that led to the high loss of life in the Katrina disaster.
The thing is, while there's evidence that the decision to permanently scuttle the reactors was delayed somewhat, there's no similar evidence that interference from "execs" materially delayed that. Else, you wouldn't be speaking in vague generalities.
Do you know anything about what happened in the months after the Tsunami?
Yes. For example, I know about the huge rush to judgment. I also know that the accident was successfully contained.
What site? What merchant account? What written promise? One doesn't need any of those to profitably exploit credit card numbers say by creating fake websites and harvesting numbers.
Another alternative here is that you can acquire your viewpoint of reality through some other means than the current whim of a politician. I just fail to see the value of the argument that some dude who is a "local governor" happens to have an opinion on the Fukushima accident.
So Japanese politicians can exploit crises for gain too. Who knew?
The idea isn't to charge them with the cause of the disaster, but with more than a little incompetence that they displayed afterwards - not to mention the often blatant lies they told to the public during the aftermath. Examples include publicly chewing out the Daiichi site supervisor for using seawater to keep the surviving reactors cooled down when that was pretty much all he had to use (given the alternative? Yeah, I'd piss on the things if it helped). Other examples include sending needed cooling water to the Daini site... in drinking water bottles. There's a whole host of other bork-ups, and the blame for the vast majority of them lies squarely on the execs in Tokyo.
So what? What's so special about your accusations that the level of "blame" rises to that of public humiliation? I think instead we see here a prime example of why the culture of responsibility, that Japan is or perhaps was famous for, has such a hard time taking root on "this side of this Pacific". Namely, that a certain culture is far more interested in assigning blame even to the point of blowing minor missteps out of proportion such as you do above, than in taking responsibility or respecting those who do.
And I find it interesting how you respond to a post about witch hunts with arguments based on water bottles. That veers into self-parody.
None of this affects the validity of using CC as age verification.
It's a form of age verification that can be charged.
Did you read the article? It's not a problem of having enough robotic surgeon candidates, but of making sure they can all be adequately trained.
In a country with the most massive education and training infrastructure in the world? I don't buy it.
I'll crank up my SUH (Sports Utility Hospital) for you. It does eight robotic surgeons per patient.
That's what markets are for. If there's a high demand for robot operators in the medical industry, then more people will sign up for the money. That assumes that the cartels controlling access to the medical professions don't block this.
CEOs don't purport to represent me.
You might have a point if his argument was something more nuanced than "it's hard and I don't understand how it will ever work" with a few marketing = boogeyman slams thrown in for good measure.
It was. You mischaracterize the post in question.
So because you can't understand it, it must not be of any consequence?
If you're spouting such straw man platitudes, then you don't know enough about quantum computers to condemn someone else. In the defense of the previous poster, I'll note that there are a number of phenomena that permeate all of the Solar System (gravity, neutrinos, and thermal radiation) that may place an upper bound on the reliability of quantum computing no matter how magical your technology is.
You tell me. I'm not you, I don't know why you do the things you do. I'm not trying to tell you why you did something. I'm just telling you what you did.
Since I didn't do what you are "telling" me I did, and you are now claiming that you didn't imply this either, then there's no point to this thread. We can communicate or we can imagine things of other people. I'd rather communicate.
You tell me.
No, I won't.
I fear it's something ingrained in humanity, so long as we have the capacity to imagine, it seems possible to become deluded in this particular way given the right conditions.
I think it starts with the idea that one knows best usually combined with a ridiculously oversimplified model of how things work.
Yeah so? Doesn't mean you can't be ALSO predicting a die off. It's not a false dilemma.
Why would I be predicting that? To claim that die-offs are necessary for prosperity is in my view a non sequitur, another sort of fallacy.
China is wealthier and better off than before. Doesn't mean there wasn't a whole lot of dying off on its way here.
Correlation doesn't imply causation. And really, die offs are associated in Chinese history with chaotic periods which don't have prosperity.
Exactly, and I'm saying you have pointed out how there are many people right here on slashdot who show all the signs of walking right into those screw ups, making things a lot worse before they could get better.
That's a lot of vague talk. What are "many people"? What are "screw ups"? And what is "better" versus "lot worse"?
Only for a short time.
There we go. With a "short time" being anywhere from a short time to a very long time.
And in other nations, it's a faction of what you spend in the USA.
For the OECD, it's 35% (from countries like Mexico and Estonia) to 70% of the US's spending per GDP (France and Netherlands). It's considerably better than the absolute worst, but it's still a big and growing problem.
You can have one or the other.
Or you can have both or neither. There are four states after all, depending on which bits you set. Note here that by definition, democratic republics decide a number of things by collective agreement.
She'd have my vote except for the fact that I don't live in the U.S.A.
And I'm sure there's some dumbshit in your country that I'd rather have running things.
My view is that the US has better things to do with itself than to heavily subsidize Chinese solar power manufacturers.
It could be a bit better I suppose. But really, what is stable about the current public spending schemes? There isn't a stable public pension fund out there in the developed world, for example. Medical care takes an increasing portion of the developed world's economies. Businesses become more and more risk clueless due to (often highly profitable) government nannying.