I was curious. Interestingly, the first suggestion for "christian fundamentalists are" is "not a separate denomination." Second is "stupid," third is "cults."
Seems reasonably on par with the results for "islamists are". I expected "...stupid" is probably a top five suggestion for any X is/are query because it's the internet.
When you click you find out that this some American politician who: "likened Obamacare to Apartheid in South Africa in a Nelson Mandela tribute speech" and "signed an online pledge vowing not to respect any law, including any decision by the United States Supreme Court, conferring legal recognition on same-sex marriage."
Now, the second suggestion is a useful noun describing a particular mixture of biological and non-biological products.
Vile is in the eye of the beholder. You can argue how much governments should legislate morality, but it seems like an exceptionally bad idea to have private corporations do it.
Hard to see a downside here. Items will be priced appropriately, instead of the ridiculous market distortion centred around addictive drugs that exists today, and restaurants will no longer have an incentive to use cheap ingredients and have ridiculously large portions, benefitting public health. Also, people may find it more advantageous to prepare their own food sometimes.
I hear judges in the US are elected. Maybe you should run?
The US judiciary is inherently political. Whether or not that is a good thing is up for debate.
However, the US legal system is also a common law one, which means that if the letter of the law is ambiguous, courts are obligated to rule based on precedent and, failing that, the most compelling argument. In this case it seems the court found there was sufficient ambiguity in the letter of the law to rule that the default position should be consistency with the spirit of the law and the vast majority of jobs, rather than the few explicitly excluded ones.
I'm sure if you plug the right assumptions into a simulation you could get that to work out, sure. The summary for that story said that they were assuming driverless trucks would replace long haul drivers and not local ones, which seems like a pretty iffy proposition, particularly since uber themselves are talking about autonomous cab fleets. Also, what local delivery modes are going to suddenly switch to trucks if long haul trucking gets cheaper? Most long haul transportation in north america is already truck, and pretty much all local delivery.
Yeah, I skip any sentence that starts with words like "actualize."
Seriously, reducing cars in dense urban areas is great. However, there seem to be two reasonable ways to do it: provide alternatives that compete with personal vehicles or provide public transportation and regulations against personal vehicles.
The Uber way, legislating a for-profit exclusive private service that doesn't even have to compete with personal vehicles, is just ripe for abuse.
A lot of Slashdotters defend Uber (or used to anyway) based on them upsetting the admittedly corrupt taxi industry. Now they not only want to replace the taxi industry, but they want to make it so not only can't you run a taxi to compete with them, you can't even own the vehicle to do it.
There was also a lot of "oh, Uber is just matching people who want to share rides!" which was always BS. Uber was never about ridesharing.
So, basically the complete opposite of what Uber currently says they stand for (people owning their own vehicles and using them to make some extra money "sharing" rides).
Uber clearly has the best interests of the people at heart and isn't just in it to make a buck by whatever means are more convenient.
"If you can't decrypt it, the you can't take the photos out of the country."
Why? You leave your decryption key at home. When you get home, you decrypt it. If you get caught in-country, the pictures are unrecoverable, which is what you want.
The easiest way to implement it would be to use a standard encryption library. No problem decrypting with anything you care to pop your SD card into.
I thought the winky face made the sarcasm clear. Or did you mean to reply to the GP?
You could leave the histogram unencrypted yes. I doubt that would be a big selling feature though. Documentary photographers probably don't look at their images (or histograms) much while they're in the kinds of situations where you'd want to encrypt pictures. And those of us who learned with film often rarely look at the back of the camera any time.
By encrypting everything you could hide the pictures entirely on the card. If someone looks it just looks empty, or maybe you put a smattering of innocent photos on it.
Except, how will this work if you want to see the photo you just took?
Who could do photography under those conditions!?;)
Encrypt-only isn't the solution to everything, but it actually might be a better solution to the problem stated in the summary. If you leave the decryption key at home then you can't decrypt it, even under coercion. Plus, if it's in the card, you just swap cards between regular shots and things you think might be sensitive. Provides some plausible deniability too: yeah, here are the pictures I've taken; oh, haven't used that other card yet.
As for looking at the pictures, you couldn't do that in the field with film either. And documentary photographers might look at quiet times for interest sake, but they don't shoot, check the photo, ask the subjects to stand differently, shoot, rearrange.... At least they're not supposed to.
But isn't that socialism? Surely credit unions are extremely uncompetitive and will soon all disappear because they don't have a profit motive to drive them to greater efficiency?
LIGO is effectively a big laser tape measure. You split a laser beam and send it down each arm where it hits a mirror and comes back. The beams will interfere constructively if they've travelled the same distance, less so if the distances differed by some fractional multiple of a wavelength.
If you're not sensitive to small enough changes with that, you make the arms longer or bounce the beam up and down them more than once.
You're right, trying to make people change won't work.
Fortunately we don't have to. Renewables are the economic choice for power generation almost everywhere, and are still dropping rapidly. Soon you'll be stupid to build any kind of fossil fuel electricity generation, except for maybe some natural gas plants to smooth out supply. Once electricity is cheap, heating and industry follow, as they already have in places with lots of hydro power. It looks like electric cars are going to be the way of the future too.
Yes, humans are idiots and we can't be persuaded to do anything even with the threat of imminent doom. But we pretty much automatically chose things that are better and cost less right now.
Can you explain how electromagnetic waves propagate? Because the generally accepted version in the standard model would sound awfully familiar to a late 19th century physicist....
You don't understand the concept of emergent phenomena. It's not a cop out, it's the observation that complex systems exhibit behaviour that can be difficult to predict from knowledge of their constituent parts. How much complexity depends on the system. The psuedoparticles that are emergent phenomena in condensed matter physics require varying numbers of interacting atoms. When you study emergent phenomena enough you can certainly learn how they emerge from simpler constituents. We know how Cooper pairs form from paired electrons, and we know how they lead to the phenomenon we observe as superconductivity.
Also, the OP could state the simple and valid argument, instead of copping out with "for various reasons" and an appeal to a dude who thought the pituitary was a portal to a hyperdimensional realm.
I disagree. It's quite possible to meaningfully and scientifically investigate consciousness. There was something posted on Slashdot just recently about a chance observation that stimulation of a particular part of the brain seems to suppress consciousness. AI researchers are experimenting with concepts like feedback and executive supervision that sound an awful lot like parts of what most people describe as "consciousness". These are all little things, but the synthesis of lots of little bits of knowledge is how real science progresses.
Unlike the magic bunkum in the summary, I can imagine a few ways you could falsify that idea. Emergent properties depend on complex interactions between relatively simple parts. If you can take a conscious brain and start removing (or suppressing interaction between) neurons and it stays conscious, that would falsify the premise. Another experiment would be to take a brain and start replacing neurons with artificial components that behave in exactly the same way as the neurons they replace. If that brain suddenly becomes non-conscious then you have shown that neurons are magic.
I thought you had a poor understanding of physics. Now I realize you don't know what emergent phenomena are.
Emergent phenomena aren't magic. They're properties or behaviour of complex systems that depend on that complexity. That behaviour is usually difficult to predict from the properties of individual system constituents.
One of the simplest examples is electricity. We know that electrons carry unit negative charges and we think they're real physical particles. When you look at the behaviour of electricity in bulk materials, it is convenient to think of electrons (actual particles) and holes (pseudoparticles that are actually the absence of an electron). Holes, movement of holes, etc. are all emergent phenomenon.
The idea that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon is precisely the opposite of suggesting it's some kind of magic. It's the idea that consciousness is a very non-magical property of a complex system of interacting parts that is difficult to predict by extrapolating knowledge of the individual constituents.
Slashdot Mirror
"at least where there is competition"
Airports and highways are known for their high level of competition.
Ronald Reagan's Tata National Airport?
I was curious. Interestingly, the first suggestion for "christian fundamentalists are" is "not a separate denomination." Second is "stupid," third is "cults."
Seems reasonably on par with the results for "islamists are". I expected "...stupid" is probably a top five suggestion for any X is/are query because it's the internet.
It certainly is vile: "santorum... rick."
When you click you find out that this some American politician who: "likened Obamacare to Apartheid in South Africa in a Nelson Mandela tribute speech" and "signed an online pledge vowing not to respect any law, including any decision by the United States Supreme Court, conferring legal recognition on same-sex marriage."
Now, the second suggestion is a useful noun describing a particular mixture of biological and non-biological products.
Vile is in the eye of the beholder. You can argue how much governments should legislate morality, but it seems like an exceptionally bad idea to have private corporations do it.
Hard to see a downside here. Items will be priced appropriately, instead of the ridiculous market distortion centred around addictive drugs that exists today, and restaurants will no longer have an incentive to use cheap ingredients and have ridiculously large portions, benefitting public health. Also, people may find it more advantageous to prepare their own food sometimes.
I hear judges in the US are elected. Maybe you should run?
The US judiciary is inherently political. Whether or not that is a good thing is up for debate.
However, the US legal system is also a common law one, which means that if the letter of the law is ambiguous, courts are obligated to rule based on precedent and, failing that, the most compelling argument. In this case it seems the court found there was sufficient ambiguity in the letter of the law to rule that the default position should be consistency with the spirit of the law and the vast majority of jobs, rather than the few explicitly excluded ones.
I'll go the other way. The law is dumb and the court saw a loophole.
There just shouldn't be any exceptions to overtime laws.
I'm sure if you plug the right assumptions into a simulation you could get that to work out, sure. The summary for that story said that they were assuming driverless trucks would replace long haul drivers and not local ones, which seems like a pretty iffy proposition, particularly since uber themselves are talking about autonomous cab fleets. Also, what local delivery modes are going to suddenly switch to trucks if long haul trucking gets cheaper? Most long haul transportation in north america is already truck, and pretty much all local delivery.
Yeah, I skip any sentence that starts with words like "actualize."
Seriously, reducing cars in dense urban areas is great. However, there seem to be two reasonable ways to do it: provide alternatives that compete with personal vehicles or provide public transportation and regulations against personal vehicles.
The Uber way, legislating a for-profit exclusive private service that doesn't even have to compete with personal vehicles, is just ripe for abuse.
A lot of Slashdotters defend Uber (or used to anyway) based on them upsetting the admittedly corrupt taxi industry. Now they not only want to replace the taxi industry, but they want to make it so not only can't you run a taxi to compete with them, you can't even own the vehicle to do it.
There was also a lot of "oh, Uber is just matching people who want to share rides!" which was always BS. Uber was never about ridesharing.
So, basically the complete opposite of what Uber currently says they stand for (people owning their own vehicles and using them to make some extra money "sharing" rides).
Uber clearly has the best interests of the people at heart and isn't just in it to make a buck by whatever means are more convenient.
"If you can't decrypt it, the you can't take the photos out of the country."
Why? You leave your decryption key at home. When you get home, you decrypt it. If you get caught in-country, the pictures are unrecoverable, which is what you want.
The easiest way to implement it would be to use a standard encryption library. No problem decrypting with anything you care to pop your SD card into.
I thought the winky face made the sarcasm clear. Or did you mean to reply to the GP?
You could leave the histogram unencrypted yes. I doubt that would be a big selling feature though. Documentary photographers probably don't look at their images (or histograms) much while they're in the kinds of situations where you'd want to encrypt pictures. And those of us who learned with film often rarely look at the back of the camera any time.
By encrypting everything you could hide the pictures entirely on the card. If someone looks it just looks empty, or maybe you put a smattering of innocent photos on it.
An SD card doesn't technically have to have any memory at all. For the paranoid, make one that's just a wifi transmitter.
Who could do photography under those conditions!? ;)
Encrypt-only isn't the solution to everything, but it actually might be a better solution to the problem stated in the summary. If you leave the decryption key at home then you can't decrypt it, even under coercion. Plus, if it's in the card, you just swap cards between regular shots and things you think might be sensitive. Provides some plausible deniability too: yeah, here are the pictures I've taken; oh, haven't used that other card yet.
As for looking at the pictures, you couldn't do that in the field with film either. And documentary photographers might look at quiet times for interest sake, but they don't shoot, check the photo, ask the subjects to stand differently, shoot, rearrange.... At least they're not supposed to.
But isn't that socialism? Surely credit unions are extremely uncompetitive and will soon all disappear because they don't have a profit motive to drive them to greater efficiency?
To look at more than one thing at a time?
Using photons.
LIGO is effectively a big laser tape measure. You split a laser beam and send it down each arm where it hits a mirror and comes back. The beams will interfere constructively if they've travelled the same distance, less so if the distances differed by some fractional multiple of a wavelength.
If you're not sensitive to small enough changes with that, you make the arms longer or bounce the beam up and down them more than once.
You're right, trying to make people change won't work.
Fortunately we don't have to. Renewables are the economic choice for power generation almost everywhere, and are still dropping rapidly. Soon you'll be stupid to build any kind of fossil fuel electricity generation, except for maybe some natural gas plants to smooth out supply. Once electricity is cheap, heating and industry follow, as they already have in places with lots of hydro power. It looks like electric cars are going to be the way of the future too.
Yes, humans are idiots and we can't be persuaded to do anything even with the threat of imminent doom. But we pretty much automatically chose things that are better and cost less right now.
Can you explain how electromagnetic waves propagate? Because the generally accepted version in the standard model would sound awfully familiar to a late 19th century physicist....
You don't understand the concept of emergent phenomena. It's not a cop out, it's the observation that complex systems exhibit behaviour that can be difficult to predict from knowledge of their constituent parts. How much complexity depends on the system. The psuedoparticles that are emergent phenomena in condensed matter physics require varying numbers of interacting atoms. When you study emergent phenomena enough you can certainly learn how they emerge from simpler constituents. We know how Cooper pairs form from paired electrons, and we know how they lead to the phenomenon we observe as superconductivity.
Also, the OP could state the simple and valid argument, instead of copping out with "for various reasons" and an appeal to a dude who thought the pituitary was a portal to a hyperdimensional realm.
I disagree. It's quite possible to meaningfully and scientifically investigate consciousness. There was something posted on Slashdot just recently about a chance observation that stimulation of a particular part of the brain seems to suppress consciousness. AI researchers are experimenting with concepts like feedback and executive supervision that sound an awful lot like parts of what most people describe as "consciousness". These are all little things, but the synthesis of lots of little bits of knowledge is how real science progresses.
Unlike the magic bunkum in the summary, I can imagine a few ways you could falsify that idea. Emergent properties depend on complex interactions between relatively simple parts. If you can take a conscious brain and start removing (or suppressing interaction between) neurons and it stays conscious, that would falsify the premise. Another experiment would be to take a brain and start replacing neurons with artificial components that behave in exactly the same way as the neurons they replace. If that brain suddenly becomes non-conscious then you have shown that neurons are magic.
I thought you had a poor understanding of physics. Now I realize you don't know what emergent phenomena are.
Emergent phenomena aren't magic. They're properties or behaviour of complex systems that depend on that complexity. That behaviour is usually difficult to predict from the properties of individual system constituents.
One of the simplest examples is electricity. We know that electrons carry unit negative charges and we think they're real physical particles. When you look at the behaviour of electricity in bulk materials, it is convenient to think of electrons (actual particles) and holes (pseudoparticles that are actually the absence of an electron). Holes, movement of holes, etc. are all emergent phenomenon.
The idea that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon is precisely the opposite of suggesting it's some kind of magic. It's the idea that consciousness is a very non-magical property of a complex system of interacting parts that is difficult to predict by extrapolating knowledge of the individual constituents.