Militaries will not be interested. What's the point if your drone has to return to a base station? The US military is already experimenting with laser charged drones, where they can beam power out kilometres to charge the thing without interrupting its spying/unexpected death from the skies thing.
Everything old is new again, particularly if you're in Silicon Valley. We called these "bursaries" although I realize that in different places that term might imply slightly different arrangements.
No, it's not. Because cancer incidence and mortality rates are way down. In an absolute sense, in everybody, rich and poor. Everything else is quibbling about whether this line is down *more* than that line.
Immunotherapy is incredible. Someday in the not too distant future you will go into the hospital for treatment, they'll create an antibody tailored to kill whatever is causing the problem (cancer, out of whack immune cells, whatever) and you'll be fixed. It's currently hideously expensive, far too expensive for even billionaires to afford that kind of personalized care, but improved design techniques are likely to make it much cheaper. You-could-do-it-in-your-garage kind of cheap.
And highly trained medical staff shouldn't be forced into slavery, to take care of every health issue for people who can't or won't pay anything for it.
Don't worry, the highly trained medical staff are doing okay. I do medical research. I have more training than the vast majority of physicians. They make a LOT more money.
The summary is misleading. Cancer incidence and mortality rates the world over have dropped pretty dramatically. In the US, they've dropped in the rich AND the poor. They've dropped more in the rich. From the report:
Some of the difference is undoubtedly due to access to cutting edge care, but most of it (the report emphasizes this repeatedly, as does the article) is due to public health issues: primarily diet, exercise and smoking.
You've bought the anti-"socialized" medicine story. Most metrics, from longevity down, suggest that countries with modern health care systems (ranging from mostly public ones like in the UK and Canada, to the mostly private systems in Switzerland and Singapore) provide better care at a cheaper cost than does the US system.
In public systems care is prioritized by need. You generally have to wait for elective procedures, unless they would resolve a problem related to mobility or employment, but you don't have to wait for emergency or time-sensitive problems (broken bones, fast growing cancer). There's also fairly little medical tourism to the US. If you want to pay, you can find a private clinic in Canada that will do the job, still cheaper than an American one would.
Interestingly, mostly private systems ALSO seem to be more efficient than the US system, so it's not as simple as a public versus private system.
I have a friend who used to do marketing for a provincial lottery commission. Her job was literally to make people want to gamble more. We've all got to justify what we do, so it was improving the experience so people got the best value for their entertainment dollar.
When you repeat your justifications enough you start to believe them. The ad industry has told itself so many times that people *like* personalized ads that they think it's true. Bell is about to learn that it's not. I actually called them up recently and told them that they are, under no circumstances, to call me with any marketing whatsoever. This was after they rang me while I was travelling internationally. I answered because I thought it might be important. Nope.
I have to hand it to Google though. They've got this personalized ad thing down perfectly. I had never seen an ad on YouTube until I saw it under someone else's account. Google appears to have figured out that when I see an ad I go elsewhere.
Yes... although the 3 collaborators restriction is still pretty annoying. I host private repos on gitlab and push public releases to github. Works fine, and also makes it a little harder to screw up and publish something sensitive.
Sure he did. You're just mistaking the "popular vote" for the actual vote. The US electoral college system has some similarities to the way most cryptocurrencies work. You've got individuals with computers who group together into mining pools. The individuals with computers express a desire (that bitcoin transactions obey the rules) but it's the people who run the mining cooperatives who actually get to vote.
It's a feature of all "trustless" blockchains. "Feature" meaning a characteristic, which you may regard as negative or positive, depending on who you are.
A basic blockchain is just a special case of a hash tree, which is a pretty pedestrian linked list except that it's got a set of hashes that make it easy to verify integrity. Git uses a hash tree.
If you don't want to have some kind of central, trusted authentication then you have to figure out who's allowed to modify the list. Most use a system where interested parties basically vote to approve changes, and the weight of your vote is proportional to either a) how much computing power you're willing to spend or b) in the case of currencies, how much of it you own. Either way, if someone collects over 50% of the votes they can pretty much do whatever they want.
You do as we do now: you trust organizations that have something to lose.
Banks have a lot of power over the financial system, but if the numbers don't add up properly, they're on the hook, and they can be held accountable because they have real physical assets, directors whose names and addresses are on file, etc.
Also, banks keep an eye on each other, just like bitcoin miners are supposed to do. As far as processing transactions is concerned, there's not really that much difference between a bank and a bitcoin miner, except that the latter is anonymous.
"The rednecks will still be able to hoot and holler and do doughnuts in walmart parking lots at midnight."
Ah, no. True independent four wheel drive and traction control is too easy to do with electrics. Sadly, soon not even the driving-a-front-wheel-drive-in-reverse doughnut truck will be viable.
This thread is a hilariously silly pissing contest. You can basically make an engine whatever size you want. Both Teslas and pickup trucks are generally towed around (in large numbers) by these, for example:
The idea that somehow "screens" are inherently bad for you, in a way that other things like paper are not, always seemed like the latest Luddism.
The UK college seems to have made a remarkably sensible statement: spending too much time at sedentary activities can have health implications; it's important to balance these with other, more active activities.
Here’s an idea. Make all “scientific” “research” classified until not only has it been peer reviewed, but until the peer-reviewing has itself been peer reviewed.
Yes, that's an option. Many scientists would love it if the public would just butt out and let them get on with it. Most realize that the public has both a right and a keen interest in ongoing research though. It IS unfortunate they're not more knowledgeable about it.
There are two big problems:
1) to get funding to do research scientists have to hype it.
2) the public can't tell the difference between science and a celebrity or physician, or celebrity physician spouting off.
The idea was proposed by Sir Roger Penrose. He got the sir part for being a scientist. It was a serious idea. Substructures within neurons could plausibly (especially in 1989) exhibit some quantum mechanical properties. The idea didn't work out.
The better part of a decade later the woo factory decided quantum was synonymous with magic.
The view of the job-seeker is so short sighted. People have been conditioned to think they *need* to have a job, which causes them to seek jobs, any jobs. If your job can be done more efficiently by a robot, why would you want to do it? If you derive self worth from your work go do something that's useful!
People need money, not jobs. The morality police like to equate the two, because it means people have to go out and do work to get the money they need. But if robots are doing most of the work then fewer people need to work.
I think we are entering a period where our economy changes in very basic ways, based on the above. That will inevitably require changes in the way wealth is distributed, as noted in the summary. I think you're right about the ultimate incentive to do this, but I hope very much that the rioting masses don't demand that the elite invent more useless make-work jobs for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Militaries will not be interested. What's the point if your drone has to return to a base station? The US military is already experimenting with laser charged drones, where they can beam power out kilometres to charge the thing without interrupting its spying/unexpected death from the skies thing.
I find in many cases if youâ(TM)re willing to do a bit of your own math you can check a lot of it. Liars just make up numbers, and not very carefully.
30 weeks (6-7 months), non-accredited, purely online.
Everything old is new again, particularly if you're in Silicon Valley. We called these "bursaries" although I realize that in different places that term might imply slightly different arrangements.
No, it's not. Because cancer incidence and mortality rates are way down. In an absolute sense, in everybody, rich and poor. Everything else is quibbling about whether this line is down *more* than that line.
Immunotherapy is incredible. Someday in the not too distant future you will go into the hospital for treatment, they'll create an antibody tailored to kill whatever is causing the problem (cancer, out of whack immune cells, whatever) and you'll be fixed. It's currently hideously expensive, far too expensive for even billionaires to afford that kind of personalized care, but improved design techniques are likely to make it much cheaper. You-could-do-it-in-your-garage kind of cheap.
They are. Here's the graph from the actual report that breaks it down by rich and poor:
https://wol-prod-cdn.literatum...
Don't worry, the highly trained medical staff are doing okay. I do medical research. I have more training than the vast majority of physicians. They make a LOT more money.
The summary is misleading. Cancer incidence and mortality rates the world over have dropped pretty dramatically. In the US, they've dropped in the rich AND the poor. They've dropped more in the rich. From the report:
https://wol-prod-cdn.literatum...
Some of the difference is undoubtedly due to access to cutting edge care, but most of it (the report emphasizes this repeatedly, as does the article) is due to public health issues: primarily diet, exercise and smoking.
You've bought the anti-"socialized" medicine story. Most metrics, from longevity down, suggest that countries with modern health care systems (ranging from mostly public ones like in the UK and Canada, to the mostly private systems in Switzerland and Singapore) provide better care at a cheaper cost than does the US system.
In public systems care is prioritized by need. You generally have to wait for elective procedures, unless they would resolve a problem related to mobility or employment, but you don't have to wait for emergency or time-sensitive problems (broken bones, fast growing cancer). There's also fairly little medical tourism to the US. If you want to pay, you can find a private clinic in Canada that will do the job, still cheaper than an American one would.
Interestingly, mostly private systems ALSO seem to be more efficient than the US system, so it's not as simple as a public versus private system.
I have a friend who used to do marketing for a provincial lottery commission. Her job was literally to make people want to gamble more. We've all got to justify what we do, so it was improving the experience so people got the best value for their entertainment dollar.
When you repeat your justifications enough you start to believe them. The ad industry has told itself so many times that people *like* personalized ads that they think it's true. Bell is about to learn that it's not. I actually called them up recently and told them that they are, under no circumstances, to call me with any marketing whatsoever. This was after they rang me while I was travelling internationally. I answered because I thought it might be important. Nope.
I have to hand it to Google though. They've got this personalized ad thing down perfectly. I had never seen an ad on YouTube until I saw it under someone else's account. Google appears to have figured out that when I see an ad I go elsewhere.
Yes... although the 3 collaborators restriction is still pretty annoying. I host private repos on gitlab and push public releases to github. Works fine, and also makes it a little harder to screw up and publish something sensitive.
Sure he did. You're just mistaking the "popular vote" for the actual vote. The US electoral college system has some similarities to the way most cryptocurrencies work. You've got individuals with computers who group together into mining pools. The individuals with computers express a desire (that bitcoin transactions obey the rules) but it's the people who run the mining cooperatives who actually get to vote.
It's a feature of all "trustless" blockchains. "Feature" meaning a characteristic, which you may regard as negative or positive, depending on who you are.
A basic blockchain is just a special case of a hash tree, which is a pretty pedestrian linked list except that it's got a set of hashes that make it easy to verify integrity. Git uses a hash tree.
If you don't want to have some kind of central, trusted authentication then you have to figure out who's allowed to modify the list. Most use a system where interested parties basically vote to approve changes, and the weight of your vote is proportional to either a) how much computing power you're willing to spend or b) in the case of currencies, how much of it you own. Either way, if someone collects over 50% of the votes they can pretty much do whatever they want.
$340 k for Bitcoin. That's couch cushion change for lots of organizations and individuals who might want to sow a little chaos.
You do as we do now: you trust organizations that have something to lose.
Banks have a lot of power over the financial system, but if the numbers don't add up properly, they're on the hook, and they can be held accountable because they have real physical assets, directors whose names and addresses are on file, etc.
Also, banks keep an eye on each other, just like bitcoin miners are supposed to do. As far as processing transactions is concerned, there's not really that much difference between a bank and a bitcoin miner, except that the latter is anonymous.
"The rednecks will still be able to hoot and holler and do doughnuts in walmart parking lots at midnight."
Ah, no. True independent four wheel drive and traction control is too easy to do with electrics. Sadly, soon not even the driving-a-front-wheel-drive-in-reverse doughnut truck will be viable.
Redneck: Not gay if you're pitching.
This thread is a hilariously silly pissing contest. You can basically make an engine whatever size you want. Both Teslas and pickup trucks are generally towed around (in large numbers) by these, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The idea that somehow "screens" are inherently bad for you, in a way that other things like paper are not, always seemed like the latest Luddism.
The UK college seems to have made a remarkably sensible statement: spending too much time at sedentary activities can have health implications; it's important to balance these with other, more active activities.
Yes, that's an option. Many scientists would love it if the public would just butt out and let them get on with it. Most realize that the public has both a right and a keen interest in ongoing research though. It IS unfortunate they're not more knowledgeable about it.
There are two big problems:
1) to get funding to do research scientists have to hype it.
2) the public can't tell the difference between science and a celebrity or physician, or celebrity physician spouting off.
I expect if you got the pig's brain up to even 1000 K it would stop superconducting....
The idea was proposed by Sir Roger Penrose. He got the sir part for being a scientist. It was a serious idea. Substructures within neurons could plausibly (especially in 1989) exhibit some quantum mechanical properties. The idea didn't work out.
The better part of a decade later the woo factory decided quantum was synonymous with magic.
The view of the job-seeker is so short sighted. People have been conditioned to think they *need* to have a job, which causes them to seek jobs, any jobs. If your job can be done more efficiently by a robot, why would you want to do it? If you derive self worth from your work go do something that's useful!
People need money, not jobs. The morality police like to equate the two, because it means people have to go out and do work to get the money they need. But if robots are doing most of the work then fewer people need to work.
I think we are entering a period where our economy changes in very basic ways, based on the above. That will inevitably require changes in the way wealth is distributed, as noted in the summary. I think you're right about the ultimate incentive to do this, but I hope very much that the rioting masses don't demand that the elite invent more useless make-work jobs for them.
Eating raw food is inhumane. Being cooked is much preferable to waiting around slowly dying, then being ingested, chewed, and slowly digested.