Look around you. The majority of jobs in a modern economy are non-essential. They're essentially made up because there's a surplus of labor so we can afford to have people who spend their time trying to sell you stuff, painting your nails, handing you a sandwich, etc. Some jobs are complete bullshit, like fund managers, who have literally been shown not to do anything useful.
The industrial revolution destroyed two thirds of the primary and secondary industry jobs but we poured all those people into the service sector. We'll just continue to do the same thing. Unless of course we get smart and actually start reducing working hours. That's not very likely though.
I had the same thought. Apple gives away its operating system because they make money selling you the hardware to run it on. Linux is free because the developers either donate their time, or are paid by companies that make money selling support. Microsoft has always made money selling Windows. This one is essentially free (sure, new copies cost money, but who needs a new Windows license?). Why?
The dude driving the car is making a profit. A bigger profit when the guy getting the ride needs it most. The "sharing economy" needs to go back to kindergarten and learn what sharing actually means.
You know, you could get a group of people together and have them all buy shares of the group. They could nominate some officers to do things like scheduling, then they could all drive, some peak times, some off. The scheduling officer would make sure that there were more people driving during peak times. The group would split profits so that everyone would be rewarded, customers would have sufficient cars at peak times, and pricing wouldn't need to change.
To take the financial burden off the drivers, you could have it set up so they got paid a fixed fee for driving, with the additional option to buy into the profit sharing plan. You could call the whole group a "cooperation." Or maybe shorten it to "corporation."
It does seem like an odd comparison, since Airbus didn't exist when the Concorde was designed. Airbus is even named for a class of typical "everyman" airliners.
The details are all in the article. The first version of their machine used magnetic beads coated with an engineered protein that sticks to cellular debris. The beads were magnetic so they could easily dump them in a blood reservoir and then pull them out and clean them off. Their newer version runs the blood through hollow fibres coated with the same protein.
And yet many farmers plant things like flowers. Flowers are pretty, although not particularly useful. But farmers can make a profit selling them because lots of people think that having flowers makes their lives better.
Just because you don't recognize the value of art history, or philosophy, or whatever, doesn't mean it doesn't have value. If there's a market for philosophy grads then philosophy grads will be in demand and more people will take philosophy. If not, then fewer people will take it and the programs will shrink.
A more highly educated populace means greater wealth production. If you have some kind of reasonable wealth distribution scheme, everyone gets richer. If you don't, some people get a lot richer. Either way, efficient investment in education seems to pay back a good return, although not necessarily at the individual level.
Making them out of metal helps. A five year old mac looks pretty good, unless there are actual dents in it. The plastic cased notebooks tend to have the colour start wearing off and/or fading, more delicate plastic bits like vent louvres break, etc.
Also, having faded, half peeled off stickers for all the hardware manufacturers all over it doesn't help.
Or, you know, like building a robot arm out of metal and electrical motors and hoping it can lift things like a real arm made out of bones and protein.
Somewhere between the ridiculously optimistic AI researchers (who mostly got sense slapped into them in the sixties) and the cargo cult neuroscientists, there's a middle ground where lots of serious research is happening.
Not all artificial neural networks are strictly feed forward. There are other designs that incorporate feedback but they tend to be harder to train and use (you have to wait for them to settle), so you don't hear about them a lot in connection with practical applications. One of the major types that is not strictly feedforward but is used a lot is the recurrent ANN, which is used in speech and text recognition, and natural language processing. In that type of network, the output produced by the previous run is fed back in as an input for the next run (the next word, for example).
The brain uses lots of different neural architectures. There are areas that use massive feedback, but other areas that are strictly feedforward. The type of ANN you're describing evolved from something called a perceptron which, as the name suggests, was inspired by models of the visual system. The mammalian visual system does a lot of feedforward processing.
Yeah, me too. AT&T, some casual labour placement place in Phoenix, I even get alarm armed/disarmed/etc. notifications from some woman's house in the NE US. Not to mention the elementary school class parents' mailing list that sent me name, phone number, address, parents' names for all the kids, plus schedules for upcoming events.
Hawaii was annexed in 1898. At the time it was a geographically isolated area with a very different culture, government, history, etc. An empire is "a multi-ethnic or multinational state with political and/or military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial (ruling) ethnic group and its culture." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire)
You could argue that since Hawaii became a state it's no longer politically dominated by the US, since Hawaiians get to participate in federal US democracy, but you might also point out that enough non-Hawaiians migrated to Hawaii and settled there since annexation that they now outnumber the natives. That's a strategy that Israel has tried in the West Bank and Golan Heights, BTW.
If you wandered into one of the less visited parts of Hawaii and asked some native Hawaiians about the issue you might get some interesting responses.
That's a pretty narrow, and frankly unrealistic, definition of an empire.
Puerto Ricans don't elect members of congress or vote for presidents. Taxation without representation. I believe that was a major cause of the American revolution, wasn't it?
As for troops, if a bunch of Puerto Ricans got together and, say, seized an American flagged ship in San Juan harbour and destroyed it's cargo, then declared the island independent, are you really sure the US wouldn't send anybody to "help restore order?"
Nope. US Strategic Air Command maintained a continuously airborne nuclear bomber deterrent until 1991. Early ICBMs were inaccurate it was believed that hard targets (pretty much everything other than cities) would require a bomber. Later land based ICBMs were more accurate but still vulnerable to first strike. Nuclear bombers were still an important part of US strategy right up until the late 80s when the B2 was unveiled.
John Boyd co-developed the energy-maneuverability theory of air combat in the 60s and was a member of the "fighter mafia." He showed that the F-111 was no match for the contemporary MIGs, and advocated for a lighter, slower, more maneuverable successor. That was the F-15. He thought the F-15 was still a compromise and was subsequently involved in the development of the F-16.
Really? How do you impose a scope on a market? Perhaps through laws? Import tariffs, work permits, that kind of thing? If you needed a general word to refer to all that, what would you call it? Something like, I don't know, "regulation?"
Sure it does. Business licenses are regulation. They can, and are, also abused sometimes. Joe Mayor's brother's kid gets that contractor license instead of Joe Blow. Import restrictions on things, including labour, are called "protectionism," which is the opposite of "free trade."
Americans are weird. You're so afraid of (OMG) socialism that you just redefine whatever regulation you find desirable as "free market."
I don't know, that seems to me to be the only feasible thing about the whole scheme. Getting people to Mars? Possible. Keeping them alive there for an extended period of time? Unlikely. People paying to watch a bunch of other people crammed into a can go to pieces and then die? You betcha.
You know commercial development of Antarctica is illegal by international treaty, right? On the other side, there's lots of commercial development (of the oil drilling and diamond mining variety) in the arctic.
Mars isn't going to be economically viable for anything. The moon though, there are possibilities. The far side is shielded from Earth for radio telescopes, there's lots of hard vacuum, and the crust is full of stuff for making solar panels. It's also pretty likely we could make rocket fuel on the moon, and that rocket fuel is in a much smaller gravity well than the stuff on Earth. No, it's not a slam dunk, but if we want to practice exploiting space, the moon seems like a much more likely place to do it.
US air doctrine was long about strategic bombers with a nod to some intercepters that could be modified to drop bombs too. When they started getting blown out of the sky a lot they asked an outspoken flight instructor to head up development of some fighters. That's how the F15 and F16 were designed.
Slashdot Mirror
Look around you. The majority of jobs in a modern economy are non-essential. They're essentially made up because there's a surplus of labor so we can afford to have people who spend their time trying to sell you stuff, painting your nails, handing you a sandwich, etc. Some jobs are complete bullshit, like fund managers, who have literally been shown not to do anything useful.
The industrial revolution destroyed two thirds of the primary and secondary industry jobs but we poured all those people into the service sector. We'll just continue to do the same thing. Unless of course we get smart and actually start reducing working hours. That's not very likely though.
An "on rails" game.
I had the same thought. Apple gives away its operating system because they make money selling you the hardware to run it on. Linux is free because the developers either donate their time, or are paid by companies that make money selling support. Microsoft has always made money selling Windows. This one is essentially free (sure, new copies cost money, but who needs a new Windows license?). Why?
The dude driving the car is making a profit. A bigger profit when the guy getting the ride needs it most. The "sharing economy" needs to go back to kindergarten and learn what sharing actually means.
You know, you could get a group of people together and have them all buy shares of the group. They could nominate some officers to do things like scheduling, then they could all drive, some peak times, some off. The scheduling officer would make sure that there were more people driving during peak times. The group would split profits so that everyone would be rewarded, customers would have sufficient cars at peak times, and pricing wouldn't need to change.
To take the financial burden off the drivers, you could have it set up so they got paid a fixed fee for driving, with the additional option to buy into the profit sharing plan. You could call the whole group a "cooperation." Or maybe shorten it to "corporation."
This is why it's important to calculate confidence intervals, or metrics of statistical significance, like a p-value.
It does seem like an odd comparison, since Airbus didn't exist when the Concorde was designed. Airbus is even named for a class of typical "everyman" airliners.
1/3 faster, not 3x.
The details are all in the article. The first version of their machine used magnetic beads coated with an engineered protein that sticks to cellular debris. The beads were magnetic so they could easily dump them in a blood reservoir and then pull them out and clean them off. Their newer version runs the blood through hollow fibres coated with the same protein.
And yet many farmers plant things like flowers. Flowers are pretty, although not particularly useful. But farmers can make a profit selling them because lots of people think that having flowers makes their lives better.
Just because you don't recognize the value of art history, or philosophy, or whatever, doesn't mean it doesn't have value. If there's a market for philosophy grads then philosophy grads will be in demand and more people will take philosophy. If not, then fewer people will take it and the programs will shrink.
A more highly educated populace means greater wealth production. If you have some kind of reasonable wealth distribution scheme, everyone gets richer. If you don't, some people get a lot richer. Either way, efficient investment in education seems to pay back a good return, although not necessarily at the individual level.
If it goes down, it failed.
Making them out of metal helps. A five year old mac looks pretty good, unless there are actual dents in it. The plastic cased notebooks tend to have the colour start wearing off and/or fading, more delicate plastic bits like vent louvres break, etc.
Also, having faded, half peeled off stickers for all the hardware manufacturers all over it doesn't help.
Or, you know, like building a robot arm out of metal and electrical motors and hoping it can lift things like a real arm made out of bones and protein.
Somewhere between the ridiculously optimistic AI researchers (who mostly got sense slapped into them in the sixties) and the cargo cult neuroscientists, there's a middle ground where lots of serious research is happening.
Problem is, if your positronic brain leaks you get an antimatter explosion.
Not all artificial neural networks are strictly feed forward. There are other designs that incorporate feedback but they tend to be harder to train and use (you have to wait for them to settle), so you don't hear about them a lot in connection with practical applications. One of the major types that is not strictly feedforward but is used a lot is the recurrent ANN, which is used in speech and text recognition, and natural language processing. In that type of network, the output produced by the previous run is fed back in as an input for the next run (the next word, for example).
The brain uses lots of different neural architectures. There are areas that use massive feedback, but other areas that are strictly feedforward. The type of ANN you're describing evolved from something called a perceptron which, as the name suggests, was inspired by models of the visual system. The mammalian visual system does a lot of feedforward processing.
Yeah, me too. AT&T, some casual labour placement place in Phoenix, I even get alarm armed/disarmed/etc. notifications from some woman's house in the NE US. Not to mention the elementary school class parents' mailing list that sent me name, phone number, address, parents' names for all the kids, plus schedules for upcoming events.
People and companies should be more careful.
Hawaii was annexed in 1898. At the time it was a geographically isolated area with a very different culture, government, history, etc. An empire is "a multi-ethnic or multinational state with political and/or military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial (ruling) ethnic group and its culture." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire)
You could argue that since Hawaii became a state it's no longer politically dominated by the US, since Hawaiians get to participate in federal US democracy, but you might also point out that enough non-Hawaiians migrated to Hawaii and settled there since annexation that they now outnumber the natives. That's a strategy that Israel has tried in the West Bank and Golan Heights, BTW.
If you wandered into one of the less visited parts of Hawaii and asked some native Hawaiians about the issue you might get some interesting responses.
That's a pretty narrow, and frankly unrealistic, definition of an empire.
Puerto Ricans don't elect members of congress or vote for presidents. Taxation without representation. I believe that was a major cause of the American revolution, wasn't it?
As for troops, if a bunch of Puerto Ricans got together and, say, seized an American flagged ship in San Juan harbour and destroyed it's cargo, then declared the island independent, are you really sure the US wouldn't send anybody to "help restore order?"
Nope. US Strategic Air Command maintained a continuously airborne nuclear bomber deterrent until 1991. Early ICBMs were inaccurate it was believed that hard targets (pretty much everything other than cities) would require a bomber. Later land based ICBMs were more accurate but still vulnerable to first strike. Nuclear bombers were still an important part of US strategy right up until the late 80s when the B2 was unveiled.
John Boyd co-developed the energy-maneuverability theory of air combat in the 60s and was a member of the "fighter mafia." He showed that the F-111 was no match for the contemporary MIGs, and advocated for a lighter, slower, more maneuverable successor. That was the F-15. He thought the F-15 was still a compromise and was subsequently involved in the development of the F-16.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Really? How do you impose a scope on a market? Perhaps through laws? Import tariffs, work permits, that kind of thing? If you needed a general word to refer to all that, what would you call it? Something like, I don't know, "regulation?"
Sure it does. Business licenses are regulation. They can, and are, also abused sometimes. Joe Mayor's brother's kid gets that contractor license instead of Joe Blow. Import restrictions on things, including labour, are called "protectionism," which is the opposite of "free trade."
Americans are weird. You're so afraid of (OMG) socialism that you just redefine whatever regulation you find desirable as "free market."
I don't know, that seems to me to be the only feasible thing about the whole scheme. Getting people to Mars? Possible. Keeping them alive there for an extended period of time? Unlikely. People paying to watch a bunch of other people crammed into a can go to pieces and then die? You betcha.
You know commercial development of Antarctica is illegal by international treaty, right? On the other side, there's lots of commercial development (of the oil drilling and diamond mining variety) in the arctic.
Mars isn't going to be economically viable for anything. The moon though, there are possibilities. The far side is shielded from Earth for radio telescopes, there's lots of hard vacuum, and the crust is full of stuff for making solar panels. It's also pretty likely we could make rocket fuel on the moon, and that rocket fuel is in a much smaller gravity well than the stuff on Earth. No, it's not a slam dunk, but if we want to practice exploiting space, the moon seems like a much more likely place to do it.
US air doctrine was long about strategic bombers with a nod to some intercepters that could be modified to drop bombs too. When they started getting blown out of the sky a lot they asked an outspoken flight instructor to head up development of some fighters. That's how the F15 and F16 were designed.