Self driving cars only need to make less errors than smartphone-distracted humans. That's not a very high standard.
They also want them to be able to drive fast in dense traffic and my understanding, with decentralized logic as to how to handle emergencies. That's a high standard, though not an unachievable one.
IMHO, they probably project various EM effects up to that altitude like their terrestrial counterparts do. But there are probably easy ways to keep from getting harmed by that.
When crimes are committed routinely, in the course of business, then that business may be judged as a criminal enterprise.
So what? You can make anything real or imagined a crime. But it remains that the people behind the business are carrying out the criminal acts, including that of a "criminal enterprise".
Assets may be seized, and the individuals prosecuted, individually and collectively.
They could anyway, unless, of course, no one actually committed a crime.
Incorporation offers a lot of protection, but incorporation should offer no protections for criminal acts.
What's the point of introducing new arguments when very old ones crush the complaint in question? The evolution of corporate personhood and the abuses it was meant to protect against are well known history, if you choose to look. I don't care how my comments are modded. I merely care whether those comments are sound and reasonable, or not.
Similarly, I don't care that people are upset about corporate personhood- though if they want to be upset, they can find a far better quality of problem to be upset about. What I care about is maintaining a society where they can be upset at whatever they want.
When you take away someone's rights merely because they are unpopular, then that's a serious danger. Even the wealthy should be protected from violation of their rights.
My point exactly. One has to invent imaginary categories of crime in order to convict abstract social structures.
While half of America pretends that businesses have some "right to speech" with Citizen's United, it is impossible to pretend that corporations cannot be criminal. Some of them are criminal in their very nature.
Not at all. We can simply observe that corporations can't commit actual crimes.
How many banks were discovered to be laundering money, after the Wall Street meltdown? Criminals, every one of them. Criminal enterprises can't be held exempt from the law, just because they were incorporated somewhere.
Then you would defend the Mafia from criminal charges, based on that rationale?
It's not a defense, but an observation. Similarly, you can't point to a crime that the abstract entity, "the Mafia" commits, but which isn't actually committed by its constituent members.
Corporations are legal fictions, and the "rights" they have been granted are to shield employees from legal responsibility, which is the opposite of their purpose.
That wasn't the case with the Citizens United ruling. Nor was it the case with the earliest rulings on corporations, which protected them from violations of the Fourth Amendment.
This ranges from corporations having many/most of the rights of humans in many countries, while at the same time only having to pay fines for crimes where humans would be put to jail.
I have to state the obvious here. Corporations are granted these rights because otherwise the people involved with the corporation have their rights abridged, owners, employees, customers. And while legislatures in various countries occasionally disagree, corporations can't commit crimes. The people who make up the corporation commit the crimes.
At least you recognize that the US isn't the sole country which has done this. That indicates that ignorance need not be permanent.
Let's get you acquainted with a number of them. Note this list doesn't include pre-1992 Arkansas shenanigans (at least the ones which didn't spill over to Bill Clinton's presidency) such as magically making $100k (out of a $1k initial investment) while dabbling with cattle futures.
People like to have fancy terms for the fact that if you don't play nice with people around you, they're probably going to fuck you up.
Fancy and misleading terms often used to push whatever the user of the term wants at the moment (here, taking care idiots who abuse drugs in unspecified ways, probably by throwing them in jail for possession). That's not what "social contract" should mean.
And you should even if you think the lives of brown people are more important than aryan ubermencsch. Europe is not the only beneficiary of the current period of relative peace.
Yeah, when you're part of the top 1% of the world, everything seems quite plentiful.
I guess witty and at least moderately intelligent comebacks are another depleted resource. There are objective ways to measure these things which don't require me to be part of the "1%".
Instead of trying to use Apollo-era designs, how about using something that is designed specifically to fly itself down?
Because Apollo-era designs are best approach for the current flight rate of the Falcon 9. And while SpaceX eventually expects the flight rate to get up to the point where reusable vehicles work, they can and did do so by upgrading a current, working vehicle rather than designing a new. more complex one from scratch.
I havent committed a crime because Walmart isnt out anything with a open box.
Sure, they are. First, those open boxes don't magically become properly sealed closed boxes. That costs Walmart money to do that. Second, there's the guest service issue. Customers aren't going to shop at your non-existent store less often. Instead, they'll take it out on Walmart.
Certainly an option, but would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to stop money laundering, and hence effectively increase the profitability of a lot of illegal activity.
I don't have a problem with that. I think a lot less illegal activity should be illegal.
The process of buying a house or car would be much less painful if there were no negotiation.
Not in the long run. What happens when you buy a lemon? Negotiation isn't about pain. It's learning about what you're going to buy and price discovery - figuring out a common price while attempting to pay less yourself.
That 1/3 increase in enrollment is not a problem so much as it's how the law was designed. More support for lower income people by expanding Medicaid and Medicaid receipts to support them. That initial growth is accounted for in the law's budgeting.
[...]
What amazes me is that the program is working more or less as designed, costs are running lower than expected, the economy has failed to collapse as predicted, and people are still saying everything was perfectly fine when stumbling into an emergency room to be stabilized and sent home was "healthcare." The idea that there have been no objectively measurable improvements to the situation baffles me.
It's only 2015. There is a future after 2015. I think we'll already start seeing serious problems by 2020.
And I'm quite concerned about what the eventual "design" is here. For right now, that looks to me like creating a crisis so that the current system of insurance can be ended in favor of a national single payer system.
By then, Tesla should have one, possibly 2, Gigafactories in operation and the economics of EV batteries will be very different and in the driver's favor.
Or other possibilities, like Tesla went bankrupt in a way that they don't honor that warranty. But here's hoping you're right.
I'm not sure I understand this. Is there some entity that could bear costs that doesn't fall under one of the categories you listed above?
Federal government tax revenue. In particular, they could have made the individual mandate constitutional by making it a tax credit on participation rather than a tax/fine on not participating. But that would have meant more cost for the law.
I think you mean Medicaid. And I'm not sure why you'd say that expanding Medicaid makes it unhealthier. The program is simply becoming larger and covering more people.
I did mean Medicaid. The problem is that the program has increased by a third in membership the span of six years (almost 48 million in 2009 to 65 million last year) while the economic base that pays for Medicaid still grows slower than the rate of growth in the program (and of health care cost as a whole).
As for it not moving toward universal coverage, I don't know how a multiple percentage point drop in the uninsurance rate isn't a move "towards" universal coverage. If the criticism is that the end result will not be universal coverage, that's true. But at a glance, it looks like results in that direction a pretty positive.
Only if you count Medicaid as part of that. While I don't have a lot of experience with the program, it does appear to be going downhill to me, especially with below market rates for most medical care.
And if the quality of the medical care doesn't matter, then it's worth noting that the US has long had universal medical care. You just have to walk into an emergency room to get it.
In reality Obamacare is not very good at all but it's a helluva lot better than what we had before it.
Three obvious rebuttals here. It is unconstitutional in several ways and these choices were made so to pass costs on to individuals, businesses, and the states. It made Medicare even more unhealthy by dumping more people on it. And there's still no move towards long term affordable health care or universal coverage, the two alleged goals of Obamacare.
Slashdot Mirror
Self driving cars only need to make less errors than smartphone-distracted humans. That's not a very high standard.
They also want them to be able to drive fast in dense traffic and my understanding, with decentralized logic as to how to handle emergencies. That's a high standard, though not an unachievable one.
IMHO, they probably project various EM effects up to that altitude like their terrestrial counterparts do. But there are probably easy ways to keep from getting harmed by that.
And you're spot on with turbulence.
When crimes are committed routinely, in the course of business, then that business may be judged as a criminal enterprise.
So what? You can make anything real or imagined a crime. But it remains that the people behind the business are carrying out the criminal acts, including that of a "criminal enterprise".
Assets may be seized, and the individuals prosecuted, individually and collectively.
They could anyway, unless, of course, no one actually committed a crime.
Incorporation offers a lot of protection, but incorporation should offer no protections for criminal acts.
It doesn't.
What's the point of introducing new arguments when very old ones crush the complaint in question? The evolution of corporate personhood and the abuses it was meant to protect against are well known history, if you choose to look. I don't care how my comments are modded. I merely care whether those comments are sound and reasonable, or not.
Similarly, I don't care that people are upset about corporate personhood- though if they want to be upset, they can find a far better quality of problem to be upset about. What I care about is maintaining a society where they can be upset at whatever they want.
When you take away someone's rights merely because they are unpopular, then that's a serious danger. Even the wealthy should be protected from violation of their rights.
Conspiracy stands out as number one.
My point exactly. One has to invent imaginary categories of crime in order to convict abstract social structures.
While half of America pretends that businesses have some "right to speech" with Citizen's United, it is impossible to pretend that corporations cannot be criminal. Some of them are criminal in their very nature.
Not at all. We can simply observe that corporations can't commit actual crimes.
How many banks were discovered to be laundering money, after the Wall Street meltdown? Criminals, every one of them. Criminal enterprises can't be held exempt from the law, just because they were incorporated somewhere.
Banks don't launder money. Bankers launder money.
Then you would defend the Mafia from criminal charges, based on that rationale?
It's not a defense, but an observation. Similarly, you can't point to a crime that the abstract entity, "the Mafia" commits, but which isn't actually committed by its constituent members.
Corporations are legal fictions, and the "rights" they have been granted are to shield employees from legal responsibility, which is the opposite of their purpose.
That wasn't the case with the Citizens United ruling. Nor was it the case with the earliest rulings on corporations, which protected them from violations of the Fourth Amendment.
This ranges from corporations having many/most of the rights of humans in many countries, while at the same time only having to pay fines for crimes where humans would be put to jail.
I have to state the obvious here. Corporations are granted these rights because otherwise the people involved with the corporation have their rights abridged, owners, employees, customers. And while legislatures in various countries occasionally disagree, corporations can't commit crimes. The people who make up the corporation commit the crimes.
At least you recognize that the US isn't the sole country which has done this. That indicates that ignorance need not be permanent.
Let's get you acquainted with a number of them. Note this list doesn't include pre-1992 Arkansas shenanigans (at least the ones which didn't spill over to Bill Clinton's presidency) such as magically making $100k (out of a $1k initial investment) while dabbling with cattle futures.
People like to have fancy terms for the fact that if you don't play nice with people around you, they're probably going to fuck you up.
Fancy and misleading terms often used to push whatever the user of the term wants at the moment (here, taking care idiots who abuse drugs in unspecified ways, probably by throwing them in jail for possession). That's not what "social contract" should mean.
but if you count that as an improvement
And you should even if you think the lives of brown people are more important than aryan ubermencsch. Europe is not the only beneficiary of the current period of relative peace.
Yeah, when you're part of the top 1% of the world, everything seems quite plentiful.
I guess witty and at least moderately intelligent comebacks are another depleted resource. There are objective ways to measure these things which don't require me to be part of the "1%".
In fact, a lot of the resources are used faster than they are replenished. Not only fossil fuels, but also old aquifers and phosphorous, for example.
So what? The resources which aren't being recycled happen to be quite plentiful and/or have adequate substitute goods.
Society is ethically obligated to take care of its own, it's part of the social contract.
Show me where that clause is located in the social contract.
Instead of trying to use Apollo-era designs, how about using something that is designed specifically to fly itself down?
Because Apollo-era designs are best approach for the current flight rate of the Falcon 9. And while SpaceX eventually expects the flight rate to get up to the point where reusable vehicles work, they can and did do so by upgrading a current, working vehicle rather than designing a new. more complex one from scratch.
I havent committed a crime because Walmart isnt out anything with a open box.
Sure, they are. First, those open boxes don't magically become properly sealed closed boxes. That costs Walmart money to do that. Second, there's the guest service issue. Customers aren't going to shop at your non-existent store less often. Instead, they'll take it out on Walmart.
Certainly an option, but would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to stop money laundering, and hence effectively increase the profitability of a lot of illegal activity.
I don't have a problem with that. I think a lot less illegal activity should be illegal.
Um not sure how this pre-Darwinist crap got modded up. Most of these traits are environmental.
So with a change in upbringing, diet, or other environmental factor, people could become 200 gram song birds? Those differences are traits as well.
Don't monitor money transactions in the first place.
The process of buying a house or car would be much less painful if there were no negotiation.
Not in the long run. What happens when you buy a lemon? Negotiation isn't about pain. It's learning about what you're going to buy and price discovery - figuring out a common price while attempting to pay less yourself.
That 1/3 increase in enrollment is not a problem so much as it's how the law was designed. More support for lower income people by expanding Medicaid and Medicaid receipts to support them. That initial growth is accounted for in the law's budgeting.
[...]
What amazes me is that the program is working more or less as designed, costs are running lower than expected, the economy has failed to collapse as predicted, and people are still saying everything was perfectly fine when stumbling into an emergency room to be stabilized and sent home was "healthcare." The idea that there have been no objectively measurable improvements to the situation baffles me.
It's only 2015. There is a future after 2015. I think we'll already start seeing serious problems by 2020.
And I'm quite concerned about what the eventual "design" is here. For right now, that looks to me like creating a crisis so that the current system of insurance can be ended in favor of a national single payer system.
They make a profit on each car sold.
Unless, of course, with the aggressive warranty it actually is a net loss on each car sold.
By then, Tesla should have one, possibly 2, Gigafactories in operation and the economics of EV batteries will be very different and in the driver's favor.
Or other possibilities, like Tesla went bankrupt in a way that they don't honor that warranty. But here's hoping you're right.
I'm not sure I understand this. Is there some entity that could bear costs that doesn't fall under one of the categories you listed above?
Federal government tax revenue. In particular, they could have made the individual mandate constitutional by making it a tax credit on participation rather than a tax/fine on not participating. But that would have meant more cost for the law.
I think you mean Medicaid. And I'm not sure why you'd say that expanding Medicaid makes it unhealthier. The program is simply becoming larger and covering more people.
I did mean Medicaid. The problem is that the program has increased by a third in membership the span of six years (almost 48 million in 2009 to 65 million last year) while the economic base that pays for Medicaid still grows slower than the rate of growth in the program (and of health care cost as a whole).
As for it not moving toward universal coverage, I don't know how a multiple percentage point drop in the uninsurance rate isn't a move "towards" universal coverage. If the criticism is that the end result will not be universal coverage, that's true. But at a glance, it looks like results in that direction a pretty positive.
Only if you count Medicaid as part of that. While I don't have a lot of experience with the program, it does appear to be going downhill to me, especially with below market rates for most medical care.
And if the quality of the medical care doesn't matter, then it's worth noting that the US has long had universal medical care. You just have to walk into an emergency room to get it.
In reality Obamacare is not very good at all but it's a helluva lot better than what we had before it.
Three obvious rebuttals here. It is unconstitutional in several ways and these choices were made so to pass costs on to individuals, businesses, and the states. It made Medicare even more unhealthy by dumping more people on it. And there's still no move towards long term affordable health care or universal coverage, the two alleged goals of Obamacare.