It's also riskier for people who don't choose to be anywhere near a car. There's probably more people dying from vehicles crashing into buildings or driving through non-road areas. And that's ignoring the effects of air pollution from vehicles.
with currently available digital imaging you still would not need to be below 350 feet for that..
I'm obviously speaking of future digital imaging not present digital imaging.
Plus, if there really is no advantage to lower ceiling flights, then why shouldn't any such flights, no matter how high the ceiling, be subject to the same restrictions?
you also would not be running into any problems with that as it is your OWN property so there is no limits on what you can do
Except when your own property is not very big or the drone can't be launched from inside the property. Flying near someone else's property may trigger the law especially since it won't be obvious in some cases (due to the limits of human sight) whether the drone has crossed a property line or not. It forces very serious constraints on where a drone can fly.
The argument is ridiculous because it protects IMHO a violation of the electoral process which is just as dangerous. The whole point of having those tapes was to provide a means to verify the legality of the vote. And the point of providing a copy rather than merely access is that access can be blocked or delayed, but once the investigator has a copy, that sort of obstruction can no longer occur.
If the machines are faulty you will need to prove that. Go... do so. However the records are probably off limits. Which is going to make your job extremely hard to do. But if someone can write an emulator I think someone can reverse engineer one of these boxes easily enough.
Which is real convenient here. I don't buy it at all. It's three years after the elections in question and it'll be even later than that by the time any access is obtained, if ever. That's a ridiculous delay for any sort of vote coercion to occur.
I think there's a reasonable case here for illegal vote manipulation and that this illegal activity is just as bad as vote coercion.
Kill every right winger, kill their families and especially their children. Their very existence is an act of aggression. You won't go to hell for killing them, every celestial being understands why you did it.
Well, ok, as long as you use drones. We wouldn't want anyone's life risked unnecessarily.
Same bullshit that went on at the beginning of George Dubyah's first term right before 9-11. He hired a bunch of people to fuck with energy prices by inducing a fake oil shortage and "rolling blackouts" to artificially raise the prices of energy. They got caught red-handed doing it.. Read about a company called Enron.
Enron was playing those games before Bush became a factor. Failure was baked into the spot market on electricity years before. And Governor Davis was the primary political factor keeping the mess from being resolved.
If you can't fill positions as you claim (and I believe that part), how can people take time off?
Since people can just leave, I really don't see the point of mandating ludicrously long hours. Once people start leaving, you just made your inability to hire people even worse.
Also, you don't sound very important if you can take three weeks off.
Sounds more important than someone who can't take three weeks off!
He's probably speaking of all the uses for drones, just not aerial photography. But since we've mentioned it, remote sensing is already a huge billions of dollars per year industry. So it's not that big of a stretch to anticipate that just aerial photography by drones could be in the billions of dollars per year just by itself!
Since it's a chaotic system, what it does is get even more chaotic and start coughing up crazier 'outlier' events, things we've not seen before. You get nutty stuff like snow in June and it's just because the total behavior of the system got more chaotic and more unpredictable.
Unless, of course, it doesn't do that.
So we can predict with high confidence a sharply increasing quotient of WTFness in the already chaotic weather. To get it to behave more predictably, we'd have to cool the whole system down a couple degrees.
Obviously, you can cool the system down enough, say near absolute zero, where it will be boring. But hot can be boring too. A diffuse plasma doesn't really have a lot of stuff going on in it either. Merely, having more energy doesn't make something harder to predict. It'll depend on the model and what you are trying to predict.
No, the distinction is important. The point is income is a cost item. People don't provide an income to you because you demanded it. People provide it because you were able to provide something else in return - your productivity in the form of goods and services.
Which is the same with most other goods and services. I'm not granting this point.
That a robot doesn't provide income or create jobs as well as a human just means a robot has less demand of goods and services as a human. In other words, a robot costs less than a human to hire. That doesn't go against the assertion that robots are better than humans at providing stuff, if anything it supports it.
Why would we expect that robots would be worse at this given that they are better at everything else? You make my case better than I did.
At worst, what we'll have here is a two-tiered economic system.
Well, looking at Falos' reply, he figured that out too. His deeply flawed thinking doesn't seem to hinder him. What's the problem here?
He says that, but I don't see that he gets it. Even in the worst case, human labor still retains value, it just is hard to translate into the higher economy. After all, we somehow have managed to muddle along without superior robotic labor all this time. So even in the worst case, we can continue to muddle along without robotic labor. And if we do have robotic labor at our disposal, then we can use that to improve our economic position. I really don't' see the point of some sort of imaginary paralysis scenario where we and the robots choose not to do anything to better ourselves.
There are two key economic phenomena which get routinely ignored here: comparative advantage and Jevon's paradox. The former means that even if robots do everything better, there still is a better economic outcome to having humans work than not, even though their work is not quite as good, it's like leaving money on the ground.
The Jevon's paradox is the model that when something is conserved or made more efficient, more of it tends to get used. Here, not only is robotic labor being made more efficient, but so is human labor. And that matches what we actually see in the world too. Human labor is more in demand than ever despite there being more people than ever in the world.
For example, Falos's labor example is illuminating. With all this robotics at our disposal, we are growing a few potatoes by hand. I just don't buy it.
Income isn't something one provides to others. Income is something one earns from others.
That is a meaningless distinction since the earning is of something provided by others. And you're just redefining goods and services to exclude nasty counterexamples to a poorly thought out general statement.
And this goes back to the original assertion, that anything (good or service) a commoner can provide, a machine could or would provide better for the same cost/income.
Unless that is not true, of course. If my currency is valued in human labor, then I doubt robots are going to get involved.
My point behind the income example is that thinking about this subject is deeply flawed. There is this magic assumption that people will be able to purchase robotic services no matter how poor they get, and unable to purchase human services no matter how poor the providers of those goods and services get.
At worst, what we'll have here is a two-tiered economic system. The robots will trade in the higher economy and humans will trade among themselves in the lower economy. That's pretty much how it goes in a significant part of the developing world right now.
Which were put in place to keep the developed world from falling into a general revolution. Which will simply start again if you remove them.
Bullshit. I think we're more likely to see a revolution with the current approach. For example, your willingness to destroy industries because you don't think their wages are high enough.
Right, so did that actually happen before those regulations were put in place? Why do you Lazy-Fairy fanbois keep ignoring history?
Why do you think the Gilded Age proves your point? That period was the transition from former colonies to superpower. They must have been doing a lot of things right.
Furthermore, if an industry becomes unprofitable simply because they have to actually pay their employees a decent wage, it seems to me that it wasn't producing any value to begin with. Why should I have to subsidize it, either through food stamps for its employees or through amed might necessary to keep them from revolting out of despair?
The classic "we didn't want those jobs anyway!" response. If they're paying someone to do something, then there's some value to it. I suggest letting it going on rather than burning another hole in the economy and society.
Further, employing poor people is something we should be encouraging. You are exactly at odds with your supposed goals. I find it bizarre how brutal supporters of the welfare state are to their would-be charges. Here, it's no better than social Darwinists.
Constellation didn't allocate money for any sort of lunar activities. It never got to the point where that would matter. It was only words then and only words now.
If you had read my post, you would have noticed the quote which mentioned the category of best editor with a bunch of editors skipped over for no award.
Slashdot Mirror
A nuclear accident could easily release a lot more radiation than a coal plant.
Sure, if we don't do anything about it. But coal burning plants operating normally are far more common than nuclear plants in the throes of meltdown.
Yes. However, that is something you choose to do.
It's also riskier for people who don't choose to be anywhere near a car. There's probably more people dying from vehicles crashing into buildings or driving through non-road areas. And that's ignoring the effects of air pollution from vehicles.
The thing is, New Orleans is not underwater.
with currently available digital imaging you still would not need to be below 350 feet for that..
I'm obviously speaking of future digital imaging not present digital imaging.
Plus, if there really is no advantage to lower ceiling flights, then why shouldn't any such flights, no matter how high the ceiling, be subject to the same restrictions?
you also would not be running into any problems with that as it is your OWN property so there is no limits on what you can do
Except when your own property is not very big or the drone can't be launched from inside the property. Flying near someone else's property may trigger the law especially since it won't be obvious in some cases (due to the limits of human sight) whether the drone has crossed a property line or not. It forces very serious constraints on where a drone can fly.
The argument is ridiculous because it protects IMHO a violation of the electoral process which is just as dangerous. The whole point of having those tapes was to provide a means to verify the legality of the vote. And the point of providing a copy rather than merely access is that access can be blocked or delayed, but once the investigator has a copy, that sort of obstruction can no longer occur.
As I already said. I don't buy this argument at all.
Could be libertarians. Ron Paul was on the wrong side of many of these anomalies.
If the machines are faulty you will need to prove that. Go... do so. However the records are probably off limits. Which is going to make your job extremely hard to do. But if someone can write an emulator I think someone can reverse engineer one of these boxes easily enough.
Which is real convenient here. I don't buy it at all. It's three years after the elections in question and it'll be even later than that by the time any access is obtained, if ever. That's a ridiculous delay for any sort of vote coercion to occur.
I think there's a reasonable case here for illegal vote manipulation and that this illegal activity is just as bad as vote coercion.
Kill every right winger, kill their families and especially their children. Their very existence is an act of aggression. You won't go to hell for killing them, every celestial being understands why you did it.
Well, ok, as long as you use drones. We wouldn't want anyone's life risked unnecessarily.
Same bullshit that went on at the beginning of George Dubyah's first term right before 9-11. He hired a bunch of people to fuck with energy prices by inducing a fake oil shortage and "rolling blackouts" to artificially raise the prices of energy. They got caught red-handed doing it.. Read about a company called Enron.
Enron was playing those games before Bush became a factor. Failure was baked into the spot market on electricity years before. And Governor Davis was the primary political factor keeping the mess from being resolved.
If you can't fill positions as you claim (and I believe that part), how can people take time off?
Since people can just leave, I really don't see the point of mandating ludicrously long hours. Once people start leaving, you just made your inability to hire people even worse.
Also, you don't sound very important if you can take three weeks off.
Sounds more important than someone who can't take three weeks off!
If someone wants a detailed image of their own property to fractions of an inch. Or perhaps, there's a hazardous situation like a fire.
But hot can be boring too. A diffuse plasma doesn't really have a lot of stuff going on in it either.
Oh, I dunno. Been to the Sun's corona lately?
Most of that excitement is due to what is dumping into the corona rather than the corona itself.
He's probably speaking of all the uses for drones, just not aerial photography. But since we've mentioned it, remote sensing is already a huge billions of dollars per year industry. So it's not that big of a stretch to anticipate that just aerial photography by drones could be in the billions of dollars per year just by itself!
Since it's a chaotic system, what it does is get even more chaotic and start coughing up crazier 'outlier' events, things we've not seen before. You get nutty stuff like snow in June and it's just because the total behavior of the system got more chaotic and more unpredictable.
Unless, of course, it doesn't do that.
So we can predict with high confidence a sharply increasing quotient of WTFness in the already chaotic weather. To get it to behave more predictably, we'd have to cool the whole system down a couple degrees.
Obviously, you can cool the system down enough, say near absolute zero, where it will be boring. But hot can be boring too. A diffuse plasma doesn't really have a lot of stuff going on in it either. Merely, having more energy doesn't make something harder to predict. It'll depend on the model and what you are trying to predict.
No, the distinction is important. The point is income is a cost item. People don't provide an income to you because you demanded it. People provide it because you were able to provide something else in return - your productivity in the form of goods and services.
Which is the same with most other goods and services. I'm not granting this point.
That a robot doesn't provide income or create jobs as well as a human just means a robot has less demand of goods and services as a human. In other words, a robot costs less than a human to hire. That doesn't go against the assertion that robots are better than humans at providing stuff, if anything it supports it.
Why would we expect that robots would be worse at this given that they are better at everything else? You make my case better than I did.
At worst, what we'll have here is a two-tiered economic system.
Well, looking at Falos' reply, he figured that out too. His deeply flawed thinking doesn't seem to hinder him. What's the problem here?
He says that, but I don't see that he gets it. Even in the worst case, human labor still retains value, it just is hard to translate into the higher economy. After all, we somehow have managed to muddle along without superior robotic labor all this time. So even in the worst case, we can continue to muddle along without robotic labor. And if we do have robotic labor at our disposal, then we can use that to improve our economic position. I really don't' see the point of some sort of imaginary paralysis scenario where we and the robots choose not to do anything to better ourselves.
There are two key economic phenomena which get routinely ignored here: comparative advantage and Jevon's paradox. The former means that even if robots do everything better, there still is a better economic outcome to having humans work than not, even though their work is not quite as good, it's like leaving money on the ground.
The Jevon's paradox is the model that when something is conserved or made more efficient, more of it tends to get used. Here, not only is robotic labor being made more efficient, but so is human labor. And that matches what we actually see in the world too. Human labor is more in demand than ever despite there being more people than ever in the world.
For example, Falos's labor example is illuminating. With all this robotics at our disposal, we are growing a few potatoes by hand. I just don't buy it.
Income isn't something one provides to others. Income is something one earns from others.
That is a meaningless distinction since the earning is of something provided by others. And you're just redefining goods and services to exclude nasty counterexamples to a poorly thought out general statement.
And this goes back to the original assertion, that anything (good or service) a commoner can provide, a machine could or would provide better for the same cost/income.
Unless that is not true, of course. If my currency is valued in human labor, then I doubt robots are going to get involved.
My point behind the income example is that thinking about this subject is deeply flawed. There is this magic assumption that people will be able to purchase robotic services no matter how poor they get, and unable to purchase human services no matter how poor the providers of those goods and services get.
At worst, what we'll have here is a two-tiered economic system. The robots will trade in the higher economy and humans will trade among themselves in the lower economy. That's pretty much how it goes in a significant part of the developing world right now.
Well, first you claimed there was good puppy fiction. I see you've dropped the claim and not tried to rebut it. Hace you conceded the point?
No. You expressed a personal opinion. I'm not here to tell you what you prefer.
Which were put in place to keep the developed world from falling into a general revolution. Which will simply start again if you remove them.
Bullshit. I think we're more likely to see a revolution with the current approach. For example, your willingness to destroy industries because you don't think their wages are high enough.
Right, so did that actually happen before those regulations were put in place? Why do you Lazy-Fairy fanbois keep ignoring history?
Why do you think the Gilded Age proves your point? That period was the transition from former colonies to superpower. They must have been doing a lot of things right.
Furthermore, if an industry becomes unprofitable simply because they have to actually pay their employees a decent wage, it seems to me that it wasn't producing any value to begin with. Why should I have to subsidize it, either through food stamps for its employees or through amed might necessary to keep them from revolting out of despair?
The classic "we didn't want those jobs anyway!" response. If they're paying someone to do something, then there's some value to it. I suggest letting it going on rather than burning another hole in the economy and society.
Further, employing poor people is something we should be encouraging. You are exactly at odds with your supposed goals. I find it bizarre how brutal supporters of the welfare state are to their would-be charges. Here, it's no better than social Darwinists.
I suppose I shouldn't complain. A willing shill is the oldest trick in the book for creating rhetorical theater.
Constellation didn't allocate money for any sort of lunar activities. It never got to the point where that would matter. It was only words then and only words now.
Sorry, I wasn't thinking.
Sorry, I see now. Brain wasn't working.
Well, why did you bother to say anything in the first place, if you're not going to bother to reason?
If you had read my post, you would have noticed the quote which mentioned the category of best editor with a bunch of editors skipped over for no award.