Let's not forget the tooth damage, either. That stuff is bad for you on many different levels. It also tastes really good and is habit-forming, so it took a long time for me to get away from it.
When I was in elementary school, I was repeatedly told that I could do anything I wanted because I was highly intelligent. Then I saw assorted career options close for reasons not related to intelligence. I've been tempted to write a book "Everything that held me back I learned in kindergarten".
I've been informed that a physicist I used to know has taken up rail guns in his retirement. Personally, I don't think that's necessarily a good hobby for the suburbs. Anyway, he didn't need any sort of superconductor to make that hole in his garage.
Most of us have limited self-control, and compensate for it in various ways. If I make something less available, it isn't the something's fault; it's because I don't want the temptation.
I carry mine in my shirt pocket, and normally do wear a shirt. Technically, that's not at my side, but it's easily available. I'm also perfectly capable of ignoring it.
Of course, if I'm reading a book, it's quite likely to be through the Nook app on my phone. (I've had too many problems with the eInk Nooks.) Let's see, reading books is good, using a phone is bad....
Run that idea past a lawyer before trying it out. The courts aren't stupid, and there's likely to be laws against effectively looting a company after getting an unpayable bill and before declaring bankruptcy.
You seem awfully sure of a Japanese surrender under certain circumstances.
The big sticking point was War Minister Anami. Japan couldn't surrender without his agreement, or at least his acceptance. He was a hawk, to say the least, and not interested in surrendering. The Japanese grand strategy for the war was to expand and then make it too expensive for the US to keep attacking, and that strategy was still viable. The nukes caused the Emperor to ask for peace, and Anami went along, sort of. The rest of the Liaison Council didn't know what Anami was going to do. He ordered the Army to surrender and killed himself without explaining himself.
So, the question is what was going to convince Anami. (I'm naming Anami, because he was the biggest hawk. If he accepted loss, the rest of the Liaison Council also would have.) We don't know what. Anami never said what he needed, and immediately after the decision he was permanently not available for interviews.
Therefore, we really don't know what would be needed, or how soon the war would have ended without uing the nukes.
BTW, the excess deaths in China were maybe around 100-200K/month, which means that a few months' delay in the Japanese surrender might have cost more Chinese lives than the nukes killed Japanese.
The US deployed military force against Japan after Pearl Harbor. Before then, the US was using diplomatic and economic pressure to try to get the Japanese out of China. The Pacific War would have been far different without the US; for one thing, there would have been no way to defeat the Japanese Navy.
The US was de facto at war against Germany several months before the Pearl Harbor attack, taking an active part in the Battle of the Atlantic (and not doing particularly well). The US didn't really change the odds of a German defeat, but it very much changed the resulting map of Europe.
WWI was the last of the dynastic wars, without a real good guy or bad guy. I've seen no evidence that the US might have come in on the side of Germany, or that the Entente powers made any provision against it. (US entry on the German side would have been a game-changer.) The primary effect the US had in WWI was to convince the Germans that they had to win in 1918 or not at all; the actual military effort, while significant, was less so.
Ideas are software. I'm not aware of books thrown into prison. People who do things based on ideas can get thrown into prison. Algorithms are no more moral agents than books are. Computers running algorithms can choose between alternatives. So far, they aren't complex enough to get much moral opprobrium. A self-driving car of the sort being worked on will not drive into a crowd just to drive into a crowd. It would be a failure of sensors or control systems, somewhat similar to a driver being incapacitated by a heart attack or stroke and driving into a crowd.
That won't necessarily last forever. If a computer is capable of deciding to drive into a crowd for the purpose of driving into a crowd, it can be a moral agent. I really don't think this would be a result of algorithms that can be understood, but something more along the lines of artificial neural nets, which have coefficients that don't themselves relate to an algorithm.
I looked up Sanctuary City on Wikipedia, and the movement appears to primarily be non-cooperation with Federal authorities and non-enforcement of Federal law. Since local authorities have wide discretion on how to enforce the law, I'm not sure what's illegal about it.
Marijuana is a much better example of states being more lenient than the Feds.
When you figure out how to make all pollutants stay within the boundaries of a state, you can argue that they shouldn't be considered interstate commerce. Carbon dioxide spreads out globally.
Free speech is not allowed on any platform that isn't a straight common carrier. Every publisher will have standards of what can and cannot be said. Failure to have those standards will doom the platform. Anybody remember the old unmoderated Usenet groups? Did you watch what happened to them as the trolls took over? How many people still used them?
In this case, the site owner. If you're publishing something (and I'm using "publishing" in a loose sense), you get to decide what you publish. How else would you want to do it? Government mandate?
If you disagree with what a publisher is publishing, set yourself up as a publisher. It's never been easier. Set up a website on AWS or something and have at.
You're missing Linus' point. The best way to develop for a server is with a personal computer running the same thing (or at least close). You don't want the sound card on your server. You want it on the laptop that you're using to develop for your cloud server.
Consciousness is not well understood, and we can't say that it can only proceed from organic reactions. If machines can be conscious, then, even by your rather idiosyncratic definition, they can create art.
So how do you tell the difference between visionary and crazy? VCs will often invest in some crazy, because it doesn't take all that many visionaries in the pool to more than make up for the crazies.
There was a theory, very popular among MBAs for a while, that a good manager could just manage without knowing anything about what the managees were doing. I think that led to a whole raft of problems, myself.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a competition. If Coke's better than Pepsi at selling diabetes, Pepsi loses business. There is no "good enough".
Let's not forget the tooth damage, either. That stuff is bad for you on many different levels. It also tastes really good and is habit-forming, so it took a long time for me to get away from it.
Why don't you give a brief rundown of evidence for a soul, rather than giving up immediately when challenged?
When I was in elementary school, I was repeatedly told that I could do anything I wanted because I was highly intelligent. Then I saw assorted career options close for reasons not related to intelligence. I've been tempted to write a book "Everything that held me back I learned in kindergarten".
If the examiner is rejecting patents because they're novel, something is wrong with the system.
I've been informed that a physicist I used to know has taken up rail guns in his retirement. Personally, I don't think that's necessarily a good hobby for the suburbs. Anyway, he didn't need any sort of superconductor to make that hole in his garage.
I've seen software patents that I couldn't implement, or which flat-out wouldn't work as stated, and I'm more than ordinarily skilled in the art.
250K isn't too bad if you're dressed and acclimated for it. It's been considerably below that this year where I live.
Most of us have limited self-control, and compensate for it in various ways. If I make something less available, it isn't the something's fault; it's because I don't want the temptation.
If I have a phone problem, it'll just have to wait in line with my other problems. I've got a fairly impressive list of problems by now.
I carry mine in my shirt pocket, and normally do wear a shirt. Technically, that's not at my side, but it's easily available. I'm also perfectly capable of ignoring it.
Of course, if I'm reading a book, it's quite likely to be through the Nook app on my phone. (I've had too many problems with the eInk Nooks.) Let's see, reading books is good, using a phone is bad....
Run that idea past a lawyer before trying it out. The courts aren't stupid, and there's likely to be laws against effectively looting a company after getting an unpayable bill and before declaring bankruptcy.
You seem awfully sure of a Japanese surrender under certain circumstances.
The big sticking point was War Minister Anami. Japan couldn't surrender without his agreement, or at least his acceptance. He was a hawk, to say the least, and not interested in surrendering. The Japanese grand strategy for the war was to expand and then make it too expensive for the US to keep attacking, and that strategy was still viable. The nukes caused the Emperor to ask for peace, and Anami went along, sort of. The rest of the Liaison Council didn't know what Anami was going to do. He ordered the Army to surrender and killed himself without explaining himself.
So, the question is what was going to convince Anami. (I'm naming Anami, because he was the biggest hawk. If he accepted loss, the rest of the Liaison Council also would have.) We don't know what. Anami never said what he needed, and immediately after the decision he was permanently not available for interviews.
Therefore, we really don't know what would be needed, or how soon the war would have ended without uing the nukes.
BTW, the excess deaths in China were maybe around 100-200K/month, which means that a few months' delay in the Japanese surrender might have cost more Chinese lives than the nukes killed Japanese.
The US deployed military force against Japan after Pearl Harbor. Before then, the US was using diplomatic and economic pressure to try to get the Japanese out of China. The Pacific War would have been far different without the US; for one thing, there would have been no way to defeat the Japanese Navy.
The US was de facto at war against Germany several months before the Pearl Harbor attack, taking an active part in the Battle of the Atlantic (and not doing particularly well). The US didn't really change the odds of a German defeat, but it very much changed the resulting map of Europe.
WWI was the last of the dynastic wars, without a real good guy or bad guy. I've seen no evidence that the US might have come in on the side of Germany, or that the Entente powers made any provision against it. (US entry on the German side would have been a game-changer.) The primary effect the US had in WWI was to convince the Germans that they had to win in 1918 or not at all; the actual military effort, while significant, was less so.
Ideas are software. I'm not aware of books thrown into prison. People who do things based on ideas can get thrown into prison. Algorithms are no more moral agents than books are. Computers running algorithms can choose between alternatives. So far, they aren't complex enough to get much moral opprobrium. A self-driving car of the sort being worked on will not drive into a crowd just to drive into a crowd. It would be a failure of sensors or control systems, somewhat similar to a driver being incapacitated by a heart attack or stroke and driving into a crowd.
That won't necessarily last forever. If a computer is capable of deciding to drive into a crowd for the purpose of driving into a crowd, it can be a moral agent. I really don't think this would be a result of algorithms that can be understood, but something more along the lines of artificial neural nets, which have coefficients that don't themselves relate to an algorithm.
I looked up Sanctuary City on Wikipedia, and the movement appears to primarily be non-cooperation with Federal authorities and non-enforcement of Federal law. Since local authorities have wide discretion on how to enforce the law, I'm not sure what's illegal about it.
Marijuana is a much better example of states being more lenient than the Feds.
When you figure out how to make all pollutants stay within the boundaries of a state, you can argue that they shouldn't be considered interstate commerce. Carbon dioxide spreads out globally.
Free speech is not allowed on any platform that isn't a straight common carrier. Every publisher will have standards of what can and cannot be said. Failure to have those standards will doom the platform. Anybody remember the old unmoderated Usenet groups? Did you watch what happened to them as the trolls took over? How many people still used them?
In this case, the site owner. If you're publishing something (and I'm using "publishing" in a loose sense), you get to decide what you publish. How else would you want to do it? Government mandate?
If you disagree with what a publisher is publishing, set yourself up as a publisher. It's never been easier. Set up a website on AWS or something and have at.
You're missing Linus' point. The best way to develop for a server is with a personal computer running the same thing (or at least close). You don't want the sound card on your server. You want it on the laptop that you're using to develop for your cloud server.
Consciousness is not well understood, and we can't say that it can only proceed from organic reactions. If machines can be conscious, then, even by your rather idiosyncratic definition, they can create art.
So how do you tell the difference between visionary and crazy? VCs will often invest in some crazy, because it doesn't take all that many visionaries in the pool to more than make up for the crazies.
There was a theory, very popular among MBAs for a while, that a good manager could just manage without knowing anything about what the managees were doing. I think that led to a whole raft of problems, myself.
Lying to investors and customers lengthened their runway. Not actually having a product is what ended it.
And you don't think male CEOs have pulled crap like that?