In these cases when the sensors disagree for whatever reason, it looks like a light will turn on but essentially they will lose reliability of both sensor ans they won't know which one is faulty (assuming they won't fault at the same exact time, which i sa safe assumption).
If so it's a little stupid, and sad, as there are plenty of techniques to decide which one is correct and which one is faulty based on the reading of the other sensors (and a small internal model of the aircraft). I hope they implement a better system.
Also Mulatto means mixed black and white race, it's not really a slur, and has absolutely nothing to do with the coffee. When coffee and milk are mixed it can be "Macchiato" (stained), "Cappucino", or "Caffelatte" with inclreasing quantities of milk (latte means just milk by the way).
I for one agree. We absolutely need to keep our government (which we pay for) accountable.
I personally think we need a transparent government much more than a small or weak (which borders with ineffective) government. If government is transparent, open and accountable, then many issues about limiting its power are moot, IMO.
Yes that would require some board, association, system and/or ultimately the whole society to determine what is acceptable or not, draw the lines, and impose appropriate sanctions, but so what ? and isn't the same today as well ? (except will sloppier and unclear rules ?).
I think the idea that you must be totally free to wake up in the morning and spread misinformation and bullshit without paying a price for the negative externality that this brings to the whole society it's just wrong, and has to end, IMHO.
The whole point of giving peasants like you this little bit of freedom is that you can say what needs to be said to the powerful without risk of punishment because you've manged to offend them.
Yes but you can arguably make the same point by stating the fact and not offending anyone, but infinitely more importantly without offending the quest for the truth, so to speak.
You want to express an opinion, fine, then don't use derogatory words, document yourself, bring your facts and data, express your opinions stating them as opinions, with some arguments and possible counterarguments, then invite others to do the same and be open to listen to their points as well.
Nothing that peer review (for example, and with all its limitation) hasn't managed to do in the scientific world since a century or so.
I agree with you. Indeed i might be among the ones who doesn't give too much shit about my privacy, because i don't feel like (for now) i have much to hide.
Much more importantly, though, I do think many criminals and otherwise shadow actors, sometimes in governments but not exclusively, have too much privacy, and everybody (and i mean everybody not just facebook and google) should know better what they are up to (e.g. where they are and how they launder they money). Especially if these guys are there to serve society interests, and are basically paid by us.
The core approach isn’t particularly radical. (Students looking for expositions of Marxian economics or Modern Monetary Theory will have to look elsewhere.) But it treats perfectly competitive markets as special cases rather than the norm, trying to incorporate from the very beginning the progress economists have made during the past forty years or so in analyzing more complex situations: when firms have some monopoly power; people aren’t fully rational; a lot of key information is privately held; and the gains generated by trade, innovation, and finance are distributed very unevenly. The core curriculum also takes economic history seriously.
Uhm... No. let me think about it... No. Let me read it again... NO!
The statement does NOT, again NOT, read "Read: Karl Marx good, Adam Smith Bad". It means just what it said, that is less emphasis on free market and more emphasis on how to solve real freaking problems. Period.
I think that you and the people that modded you up are the main reason why we long lost a problem solving approach to real world issues.
Please keep your nonsensical one liners to the twitter circles where they belong. Thanks.
But the biggest risk, IMO, is that this kind of geoengineering will actually work in reducing warming or even cooling down the earth surface a little bit.
Because if it works, we might pat ourself in the back, go on doing business as usual, and declare the problem solved, and indeed that would be in some sense appropriate, since the problem would be solved at least partially (leaving alone ocean acidification and other problematic things).
BUT then at that point sustaining the effort becomes a big unbreakable international COMMITMENT. And if for ANY reason we stop sustaining the scheme after several decades, we will, in the span of only a few years, get several decades worth of warming, at that will probably way more lethal since if the warming happens gradually we (and life on earth) will have a marginal chance to adapt, but if a lot of warming happens very fast, then adaptation chances would be way reduced, and consequences potentially catastrophic and lethal for the whole ecosystem including us.
I do believe that the process is going to be really slow, taking hundreds of years to fully pan out, which in theory helps, in practice, it might not.
Either way i don't disagree with the conclusions, when we reach that point, i don't think there is any other way forward other than some kind of universal basic income along with tighter population and border control (and some kind of free, perhaps mandatory, education). And it might be not too bad for business owners themselves after all as this will guarantee the presence of sound goods and labor markets.
Also, in about 15 or 20 years, it might make sense for them to rely on the Linux kernel for the next windows version, rather than having to throw resources at developing and maintaining their own separate old windows kernel... we'll see
>> A well armed populace is better, than a society of "walled garden"
and why is it better ? because everybody can shoot everybody else if the opportunity arises ? how is that even a civilized society, let alone safe ? i'm curious, would you mind explaining ?
Says who ? you ? did you read it on facebook, or did you hear it on an AM radio ? how can you be so sure ?
I for one am European, and a liberal, and i say if you want to own a gun, for whatever reason, and you can prove that you know how to use it and are mentally stable, so be it. I'm not extremely happy about it, but so be it. At the end of the day, i don't care about you owning a gun, but if that gun gets stolen, or goes in the market, and anyone different than you (say a criminal or a madman or a kid) can easily use it, then i object, because i think it's not safe.
Let me rephrase, it's not gun ownership per se that i care about, it's all the he people that get killed using guns, that i care about. I think that's an unnecessary burden that the USA is taking upon itself.
Alternatively, from an economics perspective, you want to have a free market of interchangeable and unsafe killing devices, fine. But then somebody (somebody who buy, sells, or uses guns) must pay for the measurable externalities brought about on the whole society (every life has a value, even just an economic value, leaving aside a lot of more important things, so go ahead and do your math about what the costs are).
And these are costs I do not want to pay, because i don't think it would be fair (for the same reason why i don't want to pay taxes for your truck).
Indeed IMO this lack of symmetry is the real problem, and it does need to be fixed.
I am willing to sacrifice some of my privacy but so should government officials at all levels regarding the execution of public functions.. Actually governments should be almost totally transparent, since the idea is that they work for us, and everybody should check to see what they are doing and how.
Fighting closeness and lack of transparency (on the governments part) with and escalation of "privacy no matter what" for everyone including criminals is not going to lead to a functional society IMO.
t depends on who is charging the rate to who. Actually bank HATE low or negative interest rates because it makes it harder for them to make money. That is negative rates require actual work from the bank, and actual investments, which always carries some risk.
If the bank was able to pass part of that negative rate to depositors, that would actually be good as people would rather invest or spend the money (which is good for the economy) instead of stashing them in useless deposit.
Which is one of the (many) reasons why abolishing cash altogether would be a good thing (really cracking down on crime would be another reason),
Indeed it made me laugh when the post said:
"Critics who oppose such changes say the big bills make it easier for people to keep their savings in cash, especially in countries with negative interest rates."
because in those countries you absolutely totally positively do NOT want make it easy for people to keep their saving in cash, negative interest rates are there for a reason!!
Put it another way, cash is one of the obstacles for interest rate to become negative, which creates a big market distortion. The current economy and market conditions would call for an natural interest rate of -2 or -3%, if that could happen then the economy would recover much sooner, and (almost) everybody would benefit from it.
I'm sorry but, while i do respect your opinion, i'm also kind of tempted to say - with no offense, really, even if that sounds a little strong - that perhaps you guys should consider getting over yourselves and your body parts, and rather use your time and energy for better purposes.... just my opinion.
One partial solution with not much cost would be NOT to have the walk signal for pedestrian and the left (or right) turn signal for cars active at the same time. Either stop the pedestrian for longer or stop the cars for longer.
Indeed this is how it is in Europe, for example.
Left turn in traffic in California are frustrating enough without pedestrians... and by the way, sometimes during a left turn the driver vision on the left hand side is occluded by the body frame around the windshield, which could be quite thick in some cars, so in some very unlucky situations the driver cannot even see the pedestrian.
Again, i think the current rules having drivers and pedestrian both have a green light is just idiotic.
The author makes good points, that the only way such surveillance could be allowed to occur is with informed consent, and that's what Snowden gave us the opportunity to do.
I respectfully disagree. I think that, generally speaking, network surveillance without explicit informed consent might be OK as long as all the information is made publicly available. Especially if it is information regarding public officials, which are paid by the public to perform their duties.
I know, this is a radical viewpoint that runs counter to many privacy advocates here. Still, i think if you want privacy then shut the phone down and have a private voice conversation with someone at a restaurant, or something like that. But if you want privacy over the internet to somehow take advantage of your position, hide your stash of illegal cash, or anyhow break the laws you don't like... sorry i am not necessarily sympathetic to that.
(and by the way, if, say, some laws are so stupid that you need to break them often, then it's time to change the laws, instead of advocating privacy so you can hide the fact that you broke them).
I bet this is a case of overftting. The network is too "large" (at least in some dimensions) with respect to the data that it is required to approximate/classify.
I think that very clearly the strategy for MS is to start selling Android-based tablets and phones with some kind of wine-like compatibility layer that allows running Office and other windows apps on tablets and phones, without trying to square the circle and forcing windows in an environment that it wasn't designed for.
In the longer run they can transition the same Android based OS (call it windows 10 or something) to home laptops and eventually in the office, before anyone else does (e.g. google, apple, amazon...).
Slashdot Mirror
In these cases when the sensors disagree for whatever reason, it looks like a light will turn on but essentially they will lose reliability of both sensor ans they won't know which one is faulty (assuming they won't fault at the same exact time, which i sa safe assumption).
If so it's a little stupid, and sad, as there are plenty of techniques to decide which one is correct and which one is faulty based on the reading of the other sensors (and a small internal model of the aircraft). I hope they implement a better system.
Also Mulatto means mixed black and white race, it's not really a slur, and has absolutely nothing to do with the coffee. When coffee and milk are mixed it can be "Macchiato" (stained), "Cappucino", or "Caffelatte" with inclreasing quantities of milk (latte means just milk by the way).
https://xkcd.com/1189/
I for one agree. We absolutely need to keep our government (which we pay for) accountable.
I personally think we need a transparent government much more than a small or weak (which borders with ineffective) government. If government is transparent, open and accountable, then many issues about limiting its power are moot, IMO.
Yes that would require some board, association, system and/or ultimately the whole society to determine what is acceptable or not, draw the lines, and impose appropriate sanctions, but so what ? and isn't the same today as well ? (except will sloppier and unclear rules ?).
I think the idea that you must be totally free to wake up in the morning and spread misinformation and bullshit without paying a price for the negative externality that this brings to the whole society it's just wrong, and has to end, IMHO.
The whole point of giving peasants like you this little bit of freedom is that you can say what needs to be said to the powerful without risk of punishment because you've manged to offend them.
Yes but you can arguably make the same point by stating the fact and not offending anyone, but infinitely more importantly without offending the quest for the truth, so to speak.
You want to express an opinion, fine, then don't use derogatory words, document yourself, bring your facts and data, express your opinions stating them as opinions, with some arguments and possible counterarguments, then invite others to do the same and be open to listen to their points as well.
Nothing that peer review (for example, and with all its limitation) hasn't managed to do in the scientific world since a century or so.
I agree with you. Indeed i might be among the ones who doesn't give too much shit about my privacy, because i don't feel like (for now) i have much to hide.
Much more importantly, though, I do think many criminals and otherwise shadow actors, sometimes in governments but not exclusively, have too much privacy, and everybody (and i mean everybody not just facebook and google) should know better what they are up to (e.g. where they are and how they launder they money). Especially if these guys are there to serve society interests, and are basically paid by us.
And get rid of all this untraceable paper used almost exclusively by criminals ?
The core approach isn’t particularly radical. (Students looking for expositions of Marxian economics or Modern Monetary Theory will have to look elsewhere.) But it treats perfectly competitive markets as special cases rather than the norm, trying to incorporate from the very beginning the progress economists have made during the past forty years or so in analyzing more complex situations: when firms have some monopoly power; people aren’t fully rational; a lot of key information is privately held; and the gains generated by trade, innovation, and finance are distributed very unevenly. The core curriculum also takes economic history seriously.
>> Read: Karl Marx good, Adam Smith Bad
Uhm ... No. let me think about it ... No. Let me read it again ... NO!
The statement does NOT, again NOT, read "Read: Karl Marx good, Adam Smith Bad". It means just what it said, that is less emphasis on free market and more emphasis on how to solve real freaking problems. Period.
I think that you and the people that modded you up are the main reason why we long lost a problem solving approach to real world issues.
Please keep your nonsensical one liners to the twitter circles where they belong. Thanks.
You can also go the other way around:
http://www.ensoftcorp.com/mode...
That's right, more CO2 remains in the system.
But the biggest risk, IMO, is that this kind of geoengineering will actually work in reducing warming or even cooling down the earth surface a little bit.
Because if it works, we might pat ourself in the back, go on doing business as usual, and declare the problem solved, and indeed that would be in some sense appropriate, since the problem would be solved at least partially (leaving alone ocean acidification and other problematic things).
BUT then at that point sustaining the effort becomes a big unbreakable international COMMITMENT. And if for ANY reason we stop sustaining the scheme after several decades, we will, in the span of only a few years, get several decades worth of warming, at that will probably way more lethal since if the warming happens gradually we (and life on earth) will have a marginal chance to adapt, but if a lot of warming happens very fast, then adaptation chances would be way reduced, and consequences potentially catastrophic and lethal for the whole ecosystem including us.
>> Second, why should we favor the borrower over the lender?
Because they tend to be more resource constrained and hence to spend more money (which is good for the economy) than the lenders.
Truly great post. I saved it!
I do believe that the process is going to be really slow, taking hundreds of years to fully pan out, which in theory helps, in practice, it might not.
Either way i don't disagree with the conclusions, when we reach that point, i don't think there is any other way forward other than some kind of universal basic income along with tighter population and border control (and some kind of free, perhaps mandatory, education). And it might be not too bad for business owners themselves after all as this will guarantee the presence of sound goods and labor markets.
Also, in about 15 or 20 years, it might make sense for them to rely on the Linux kernel for the next windows version, rather than having to throw resources at developing and maintaining their own separate old windows kernel ... we'll see
>> A well armed populace is better, than a society of "walled garden"
and why is it better ? because everybody can shoot everybody else if the opportunity arises ?
how is that even a civilized society, let alone safe ? i'm curious, would you mind explaining ?
>> because the real goal is not "safety"
Says who ? you ? did you read it on facebook, or did you hear it on an AM radio ? how can you be so sure ?
I for one am European, and a liberal, and i say if you want to own a gun, for whatever reason, and you can prove that you know how to use it and are mentally stable, so be it. I'm not extremely happy about it, but so be it. At the end of the day, i don't care about you owning a gun, but if that gun gets stolen, or goes in the market, and anyone different than you (say a criminal or a madman or a kid) can easily use it, then i object, because i think it's not safe.
Let me rephrase, it's not gun ownership per se that i care about, it's all the he people that get killed using guns, that i care about. I think that's an unnecessary burden that the USA is taking upon itself.
Alternatively, from an economics perspective, you want to have a free market of interchangeable and unsafe killing devices, fine. But then somebody (somebody who buy, sells, or uses guns) must pay for the measurable externalities brought about on the whole society (every life has a value, even just an economic value, leaving aside a lot of more important things, so go ahead and do your math about what the costs are).
And these are costs I do not want to pay, because i don't think it would be fair (for the same reason why i don't want to pay taxes for your truck).
Indeed IMO this lack of symmetry is the real problem, and it does need to be fixed.
I am willing to sacrifice some of my privacy but so should government officials at all levels regarding the execution of public functions.. Actually governments should be almost totally transparent, since the idea is that they work for us, and everybody should check to see what they are doing and how.
Fighting closeness and lack of transparency (on the governments part) with and escalation of "privacy no matter what" for everyone including criminals is not going to lead to a functional society IMO.
t depends on who is charging the rate to who. Actually bank HATE low or negative interest rates because it makes it harder for them to make money. That is negative rates require actual work from the bank, and actual investments, which always carries some risk.
If the bank was able to pass part of that negative rate to depositors, that would actually be good as people would rather invest or spend the money (which is good for the economy) instead of stashing them in useless deposit.
Which is one of the (many) reasons why abolishing cash altogether would be a good thing (really cracking down on crime would be another reason),
Indeed it made me laugh when the post said:
"Critics who oppose such changes say the big bills make it easier for people to keep their savings in cash, especially in countries with negative interest rates."
because in those countries you absolutely totally positively do NOT want make it easy for people to keep their saving in cash, negative interest rates are there for a reason!!
Put it another way, cash is one of the obstacles for interest rate to become negative, which creates a big market distortion. The current economy and market conditions would call for an natural interest rate of -2 or -3%, if that could happen then the economy would recover much sooner, and (almost) everybody would benefit from it.
I'm sorry but, while i do respect your opinion, i'm also kind of tempted to say - with no offense, really, even if that sounds a little strong - that perhaps you guys should consider getting over yourselves and your body parts, and rather use your time and energy for better purposes. ... just my opinion.
One partial solution with not much cost would be NOT to have the walk signal for pedestrian and the left (or right) turn signal for cars active at the same time. Either stop the pedestrian for longer or stop the cars for longer.
Indeed this is how it is in Europe, for example.
Left turn in traffic in California are frustrating enough without pedestrians ... and by the way, sometimes during a left turn the driver vision on the left hand side is occluded by the body frame around the windshield, which could be quite thick in some cars, so in some very unlucky situations the driver cannot even see the pedestrian.
Again, i think the current rules having drivers and pedestrian both have a green light is just idiotic.
The author makes good points, that the only way such surveillance could be allowed to occur is with informed consent, and that's what Snowden gave us the opportunity to do.
I respectfully disagree. I think that, generally speaking, network surveillance without explicit informed consent might be OK as long as all the information is made publicly available. Especially if it is information regarding public officials, which are paid by the public to perform their duties.
I know, this is a radical viewpoint that runs counter to many privacy advocates here. Still, i think if you want privacy then shut the phone down and have a private voice conversation with someone at a restaurant, or something like that. But if you want privacy over the internet to somehow take advantage of your position, hide your stash of illegal cash, or anyhow break the laws you don't like ... sorry i am not necessarily sympathetic to that.
(and by the way, if, say, some laws are so stupid that you need to break them often, then it's time to change the laws, instead of advocating privacy so you can hide the fact that you broke them).
I bet this is a case of overftting. The network is too "large" (at least in some dimensions) with respect to the data that it is required to approximate/classify.
Go to https://mayone.us/ and read a little bit. The video explaining it is just 4 minutes long ...
Donate if you can, and do spread the word anyway.
As he says, it's a little bit of a moonshot but we need to try it!
I think that very clearly the strategy for MS is to start selling Android-based tablets and phones with some kind of wine-like compatibility layer that allows running Office and other windows apps on tablets and phones, without trying to square the circle and forcing windows in an environment that it wasn't designed for.
In the longer run they can transition the same Android based OS (call it windows 10 or something) to home laptops and eventually in the office, before anyone else does (e.g. google, apple, amazon ...).