Only if you don't believe civilian gun ownership has a chilling effect on fascism.
I don't believe civilian gun ownership has a chilling effect on fascism. I'm going to need to see evidence to change my mind. Most other developed countries have tighter gun regulations than the US, and they typically aren't sliding into fascism.
On the other hand, research can be really expensive, as you've pointed out. To make this worthwhile, they have to protect their ideas and implementations as best they can. The alternative is large government grants to develop self-driving cars, and that's less efficient than the private sector. Government research grants are a good idea if the private sector isn't going to do the research, but not otherwise.
I can't reason with another driver. I'm in my car and the other driver is in their car, so there's no way to communicate with the bandwidth needed. I don't know what's going on with other drivers either. They may be tired, depressed, angry, having a bad side effect from a prescription drug, on something illegal, drunk, or distracted. Nor do I understand brains nearly as well as I understand artificial neural nets and the like.
When I was working on a learning algorithm to perform a certain task, I had it ground into me that the evaluation function and restrictions on valid solutions are very, very important.
On at least some versions of Sid Meier's Civilization, Gandhi was given an aggression value of 1. Becoming a Republic drops aggression by 1, becoming a Democracy drops it by 2. Guess what India was like as a democracy.
You just conceded my point, by claiming that some people use a definition of "socialism" that isn't the economic one, but one which is compatible with free-market capitalism. Meanings show up in the dictionary when lots of people use them. You;'re saying that you don't like or accept one of the commonly used meanings.
You also seem to confuse the two. I haven't noticed Sanders pushing for government control of the means of production. I've noticed him advocating social programs. By your definition, he's a Social Democrat., not a socialist in the economic sense.
Question: did they earn it? Did they work hard to get where they are?
People who aren't white men work hard also, and statistically don't do as well. I want equality of opportunity, and you seem to want tacit white male superiority.
And, of course, you are displaying a vast lack of knowledge about socialism. Making sure predominantly black neighborhoods have good schools is not the same as emulating the Soviet Union.
I don't use illegal drugs. I tried marijuana once, and didn't like it. I don't drink alcohol or smoke, and I'm almost completely off caffeine. What you see is how I naturally think. How you view that is your problem.
So, you want specific charges and solid evidence completely sourced before an investigation begins? There's a lot of things that could land Trump in prison for life, given that he's fairly old and doesn't look to be in great health. There's possibilities for financial crimes. We know he's got extensive ties with Russians, and there may be something there.
Any uncensored service is going to have all sorts of unsavory things on it. Usenet died when not enough people cared about it for it to be worth any hassle.
And you're still in a developed democratic country, so you think insulting people by category takes courage. In many countries, attempting to foster free speech or oppose the government is punishable by prison, torture, and possibly death. That takes courage, even if the messages can be posted anonymously.
Without some sort of moderation, assholes will move into forums and make them unusable. I watched some of my favorite Usenet groups die that way. I prefer usable tools to unusable tools, myself, but you may be happy with a social network that floods you with all sorts of spam and stupidity so you can't find meaningful messages.
There have been dozens of open source attempts that tried, but even if they were technically acceptable, society still prefers the proprietary alternative, whether it is facebook, microsoft, kik, or google
Society, as a whole, doesn't care about free vs. proprietary, and doesn't understand the difference. Society, as a whole, likes easy-to-use software that's free as in beer. F/OSS generally has less concern for being easy to use as proprietary consumer software, and is at a disadvantage there. In some cases, F/OSS has a price advantage (like LibreOffice), but Google and Facebook are no charge at point of use.
Moreover, "dozens" of F/OS attempts doesn't matter, because the value of social media is who is on it, and that favors a single solution rather than several not-quite-compatible solutions.
Which means that this is a legitimate function of the Federal government. It doesn't mean anything as far as severity goes, and I'd rather see the FBI giving copyright infringement a lower priority.
A backup is a copy that won't likely go away for the same reason the original won't. There are no backup systems that are totally reliable and will function in a major thermonuclear war or after a really large asteroid strike. Dropbox gives me geographical redundancy, if nothing else.
If 20% of situations are edge cases, then, considering the number of "situations" a Waymo car has, it does very well indeed. Personally, I don't know under what conditions Waymo cars are tested; where do you get your information?
There will never be 100% confidence that cars can detect all possible obstacles. Lots better than humans is the best we're going to be able to do.
There's a bunch of empiricals who've noticed that they don't need anything other than the physical* to explain their experiences and observations. (They don't know everything, but they know a lot, and haven't seen any reason to believe there's anything non-material.) Science is very tolerant, but there's one rule: you have to be able to show objectively verifiable evidence, and that's lacking. If you don't have that, you can't investigate scientifically.
People have tried to scientifically study non-physical phenomenon. Look up parapsychology, which was an attempt to study psychic phenomena scientifically. It lasted for a fair number of years, had its own journal, and went pretty much nowhere. Their experiments were typically not proof enough against cheating by subjects. So, Tesla was wrong.
*This is a bit tricky. Suppose Jim Butcher's Dresden File novels were accurate descriptions of what went on. I can argue that, in that case, Dresden is using heretofore unknown laws of physics, which we need to research. Given that Dresden was capable of producing objectively verifiable effects (my favorite opening line from the series: "The building was on fire, and it wasn't my fault."), what he and the other characters could do would be analyzable by science.
Except that you're making this up from no experience. UnknownSoldier is referring toa reasonably established tradition which he or she has personal experience of. Moreover, what UnknownSoldier considers paths to enlightenment do not require mystical belief. I've taken meditation classes in which certain techniques were taught. There were claims of things that appear to be supernatural, but they weren't all that important to the class. Personally, I found the meditation useful in keeping me going through a difficult time, but so far I haven't verified any supernatural effects.
If an entity demonstrates perception of it's environment, the ability to process that information, and the ability to store and recall that information, then it is aware.
You have just defined a video game AI as aware, or a mobile autonomous robot. My iPhone can detect its position, process that in the Map app, and can store and recall that information. I think this definition needs refinement.
There are plenty of countries that restrict private gun ownership pretty severely and are free democracies (more democratic than the US currently is). Right now, the party that's against gun control is doing its level best to destroy democracy and set up permanent one-party rule, along with restriction of rights for anyone who isn't a white Christian man.
If you're thinking about a gun-owner revolt, forget about it. If the country gets into such bad shape that it's thinkable, what will decide the issue is what the United States Armed Forces do. Any possible influence armed civilians would have is at best a rounding error.
In other words, the only way to be fair to white men is to freeze policies that leave them making the most money, getting the most respect, being treated best by the justice system, etc.? You say that equal opportunity in a race is one guy with a starting block and another guy ankle-deep in mud? The right wing seems intent on maintaining white male Christian dominance by any means possible.
I've addressed the two main meanings of "socialism" elsewhere. You're using the wrong one.
And once more we have problems with the dual meanings of "socialism". Originally, socialism was about the workers owning the means of production, which effectively means the government controlling them, and that doesn't work. More recently, it's about the government taking care of people without needing to control the basic economy, and that's what most European socialists are, as well as Sanders. The economies remain capitalist, companies are mostly private, but the government provides a lot more services for people.
Nordic countries are heavily socialist in the more modern meaning. I haven't observed them objecting to the term. They're also some of the happiest countries in the world. They're doing some things very right.
Sanders is calling for things like universal health care, free education, and other things that are a matter of course in many other countries, who seem to be doing just fine. I don't see the point in you insisting that he be considered "hard left", since he certainly wouldn't be in many (perhaps most) developed countries. Most capitalist democracies would be way to the left if Sanders is "hard left", so it doesn't seem to be a useful definition.
So what? We know it's plasma because of currently accepted astronomy and physics. (There's more dark matter, but we can't see it.) That doesn't mean that an alternative idea that relies on the Universe being mostly plasma is true, or even credible.'
And, no, plasma doesn't do anything similar to the observed anomalies of dark matter. We can see it. It interacts with itself other than gravitationally. It can't provide gravitational lensing without visible matter because it is visible matter.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe civilian gun ownership has a chilling effect on fascism. I'm going to need to see evidence to change my mind. Most other developed countries have tighter gun regulations than the US, and they typically aren't sliding into fascism.
On the other hand, research can be really expensive, as you've pointed out. To make this worthwhile, they have to protect their ideas and implementations as best they can. The alternative is large government grants to develop self-driving cars, and that's less efficient than the private sector. Government research grants are a good idea if the private sector isn't going to do the research, but not otherwise.
I can't reason with another driver. I'm in my car and the other driver is in their car, so there's no way to communicate with the bandwidth needed. I don't know what's going on with other drivers either. They may be tired, depressed, angry, having a bad side effect from a prescription drug, on something illegal, drunk, or distracted. Nor do I understand brains nearly as well as I understand artificial neural nets and the like.
When I was working on a learning algorithm to perform a certain task, I had it ground into me that the evaluation function and restrictions on valid solutions are very, very important.
On at least some versions of Sid Meier's Civilization, Gandhi was given an aggression value of 1. Becoming a Republic drops aggression by 1, becoming a Democracy drops it by 2. Guess what India was like as a democracy.
You just conceded my point, by claiming that some people use a definition of "socialism" that isn't the economic one, but one which is compatible with free-market capitalism. Meanings show up in the dictionary when lots of people use them. You;'re saying that you don't like or accept one of the commonly used meanings.
You also seem to confuse the two. I haven't noticed Sanders pushing for government control of the means of production. I've noticed him advocating social programs. By your definition, he's a Social Democrat., not a socialist in the economic sense.
People who aren't white men work hard also, and statistically don't do as well. I want equality of opportunity, and you seem to want tacit white male superiority.
And, of course, you are displaying a vast lack of knowledge about socialism. Making sure predominantly black neighborhoods have good schools is not the same as emulating the Soviet Union.
I don't use illegal drugs. I tried marijuana once, and didn't like it. I don't drink alcohol or smoke, and I'm almost completely off caffeine. What you see is how I naturally think. How you view that is your problem.
So, you want specific charges and solid evidence completely sourced before an investigation begins? There's a lot of things that could land Trump in prison for life, given that he's fairly old and doesn't look to be in great health. There's possibilities for financial crimes. We know he's got extensive ties with Russians, and there may be something there.
Any uncensored service is going to have all sorts of unsavory things on it. Usenet died when not enough people cared about it for it to be worth any hassle.
And you're still in a developed democratic country, so you think insulting people by category takes courage. In many countries, attempting to foster free speech or oppose the government is punishable by prison, torture, and possibly death. That takes courage, even if the messages can be posted anonymously.
Without some sort of moderation, assholes will move into forums and make them unusable. I watched some of my favorite Usenet groups die that way. I prefer usable tools to unusable tools, myself, but you may be happy with a social network that floods you with all sorts of spam and stupidity so you can't find meaningful messages.
Good idea. I'll just stroll over to my friend in North Carolina, or maybe my wife's Florida cousin, this evening and talk to them.
Society, as a whole, doesn't care about free vs. proprietary, and doesn't understand the difference. Society, as a whole, likes easy-to-use software that's free as in beer. F/OSS generally has less concern for being easy to use as proprietary consumer software, and is at a disadvantage there. In some cases, F/OSS has a price advantage (like LibreOffice), but Google and Facebook are no charge at point of use.
Moreover, "dozens" of F/OS attempts doesn't matter, because the value of social media is who is on it, and that favors a single solution rather than several not-quite-compatible solutions.
Which means that this is a legitimate function of the Federal government. It doesn't mean anything as far as severity goes, and I'd rather see the FBI giving copyright infringement a lower priority.
A backup is a copy that won't likely go away for the same reason the original won't. There are no backup systems that are totally reliable and will function in a major thermonuclear war or after a really large asteroid strike. Dropbox gives me geographical redundancy, if nothing else.
If 20% of situations are edge cases, then, considering the number of "situations" a Waymo car has, it does very well indeed. Personally, I don't know under what conditions Waymo cars are tested; where do you get your information?
There will never be 100% confidence that cars can detect all possible obstacles. Lots better than humans is the best we're going to be able to do.
There's a bunch of empiricals who've noticed that they don't need anything other than the physical* to explain their experiences and observations. (They don't know everything, but they know a lot, and haven't seen any reason to believe there's anything non-material.) Science is very tolerant, but there's one rule: you have to be able to show objectively verifiable evidence, and that's lacking. If you don't have that, you can't investigate scientifically.
People have tried to scientifically study non-physical phenomenon. Look up parapsychology, which was an attempt to study psychic phenomena scientifically. It lasted for a fair number of years, had its own journal, and went pretty much nowhere. Their experiments were typically not proof enough against cheating by subjects. So, Tesla was wrong.
*This is a bit tricky. Suppose Jim Butcher's Dresden File novels were accurate descriptions of what went on. I can argue that, in that case, Dresden is using heretofore unknown laws of physics, which we need to research. Given that Dresden was capable of producing objectively verifiable effects (my favorite opening line from the series: "The building was on fire, and it wasn't my fault."), what he and the other characters could do would be analyzable by science.
Except that you're making this up from no experience. UnknownSoldier is referring toa reasonably established tradition which he or she has personal experience of. Moreover, what UnknownSoldier considers paths to enlightenment do not require mystical belief. I've taken meditation classes in which certain techniques were taught. There were claims of things that appear to be supernatural, but they weren't all that important to the class. Personally, I found the meditation useful in keeping me going through a difficult time, but so far I haven't verified any supernatural effects.
You have just defined a video game AI as aware, or a mobile autonomous robot. My iPhone can detect its position, process that in the Map app, and can store and recall that information. I think this definition needs refinement.
Ah, logic. Gotta love it.
There are plenty of countries that restrict private gun ownership pretty severely and are free democracies (more democratic than the US currently is). Right now, the party that's against gun control is doing its level best to destroy democracy and set up permanent one-party rule, along with restriction of rights for anyone who isn't a white Christian man.
If you're thinking about a gun-owner revolt, forget about it. If the country gets into such bad shape that it's thinkable, what will decide the issue is what the United States Armed Forces do. Any possible influence armed civilians would have is at best a rounding error.
In other words, the only way to be fair to white men is to freeze policies that leave them making the most money, getting the most respect, being treated best by the justice system, etc.? You say that equal opportunity in a race is one guy with a starting block and another guy ankle-deep in mud? The right wing seems intent on maintaining white male Christian dominance by any means possible.
I've addressed the two main meanings of "socialism" elsewhere. You're using the wrong one.
And once more we have problems with the dual meanings of "socialism". Originally, socialism was about the workers owning the means of production, which effectively means the government controlling them, and that doesn't work. More recently, it's about the government taking care of people without needing to control the basic economy, and that's what most European socialists are, as well as Sanders. The economies remain capitalist, companies are mostly private, but the government provides a lot more services for people.
Nordic countries are heavily socialist in the more modern meaning. I haven't observed them objecting to the term. They're also some of the happiest countries in the world. They're doing some things very right.
Sanders is calling for things like universal health care, free education, and other things that are a matter of course in many other countries, who seem to be doing just fine. I don't see the point in you insisting that he be considered "hard left", since he certainly wouldn't be in many (perhaps most) developed countries. Most capitalist democracies would be way to the left if Sanders is "hard left", so it doesn't seem to be a useful definition.
So what? We know it's plasma because of currently accepted astronomy and physics. (There's more dark matter, but we can't see it.) That doesn't mean that an alternative idea that relies on the Universe being mostly plasma is true, or even credible.'
And, no, plasma doesn't do anything similar to the observed anomalies of dark matter. We can see it. It interacts with itself other than gravitationally. It can't provide gravitational lensing without visible matter because it is visible matter.
So, what does Goddard have to do with this anyway? I'm not aware that he was a major theoretical physicist.