Simulations are loosely similar to doing unit testing in programming.
The random chaos involved is not purely random; just way way beyond human comprehension. The statistical patterns may exist in the noise to be discovered someday - no, it won't describe the system in any reproducible way but it will increase accuracy for increasingly detailed predictions. Accuracy is inversely related to the level of prediction. We don't know the curve between these two without a great deal of work. Think of breaking encryption, brute force can be impractical but if you apply statistics (finding weakness patterns) you greatly reduce the amount of work guessing (huge understatement, you go from billions of billions to just thousands.)
I remember the models for my region, all but 1 said we'd get more rain and that 1 said it would be the same. None of them said less rain. We've had more rain as predicted by the simulation (the span was about a decade, it was climate not weather prediction I'm citing here.) Also, if they ran 25 (I think it was just 4) and most were correct - then it was a good simulation. If just 1 matched reality, it is still a good simulation! The problem is when no simulation remotely matches the outcome; then you have a LOT of work to do. Like I said, it's fluid dynamics, the longer it runs and the more detailed the greater the parallel universe of possible outcomes.
Climate change: It's extremely general and obvious ever since they figured out Venus. Then it was figuring out how much heat... and after that the complex predictions so we know how much is too much. That is done too. What we are doing now is trying to get even more detail for some reason; which probably has to do more with money and political long term planning at this point. So we have ignorant people dismissing the solved problems while citing the extraneous work as it approaches the limits of understanding. Bringing up weather prediction is even more extreme in the ignorance.
You know this stuff wouldn't be controversial if we lived on the moon... planetary and climate science wouldn't apply to us and upset certain people.
Radioactive materials concentrate up the food chain so I suppose this is one way to let nature clean it up for you.
Radioactive Germans probably costs more to the national health service than buying the meat. Meat that only makes you sick, probably doesn't cost much; however, cancer is expensive.
Perhaps it is a conspiracy, we don't want some Blond Haired, Blue eyed, big nosed man with a german accent calling himself PiggyMan! I'm sure the Muppets have a job for him...
I am like this guy; looked into all the same stuff over the years. Additions:
Flywheels: Dept. E helped develop viable designs which scale long ago but the costs keep it a niche product for data centers needing a buffer while the gas generators turn on.
Elevated Mass: ridiculous idea from a green website last year by some german engineer or professor. When I did the math, I figured I'd have to move the whole house 3m upward to get enough mass/power as a $30,000 battery pack (it's more feasible if you have a cliff near bye and your needs are tiny.)
Employer car charging. Not a time-shift; however, storing the massive amount of energy a car uses during the day only to dump that back into the car at night wastes a great deal of energy from all the conversion in that process. Employer parking lots charging to recharge employee cars would make electric cars more realistic for people who are off grid.
Public take over of the grid. The electric grid largely follows the roads (public land, usually public roads) and should be run by the public so we can stop having corrupt grid owners fighting against the distributed grid the future demands. Power suppliers can compete on the grid just as businesses compete while using the roads. This would also lower grid costs as governments are better able to think long term and bury high voltage DC power lines which reduce long term system costs but require upfront investment. This would also foster a market for power storage as the prices on such a grid could spike as a cloud passes bye... it would become a stock market like game.... (where Mr. Burns really could provide by blocking out the sun!)
Even if you can simulate every atom in the atmosphere for such a situation, we are talking about fluid dynamics! The least predictable thing not really known to man or god. Best you can do is guess general trends for short periods of time or in the case of climate models, you have to get extremely general to be at all accurate.
This is worse than accurately simulating a human brain and ending up with intelligence (without preloading a living brain scan; even so, it would be silly to think the machine would predict YOU. just as an instant clone of you would diverge from you.)
The 5.1 label was just to separate it out, the intention of most was to have it live so that there is no new version. As you probably know already, most the major stuff is not directly under HTML5 but are side groups which either are under HTML5 or they are separate but are treated like they are part of HTML5 (openGL or web sockets for example.) New tags like MAIN, DETAIL, FIGURE or PICTURE, well those ended up in HTML5 but were not around or changed quite a bit. Firefox still doesn't support DETAIL even though it has had decent documentation for quite a while now (it didn't for a long time...)
The mature people involved realized that version numbers do not mean a whole lot because vendors market themselves as supporting "STANDARD X.Y" but lack full support or correct support (MS being a great example.) There is little practical reason for versions because they do not mean a whole lot and real world developers have to work around mixed user support anyway.
If you don't like the PICTURE tag, try to get HTTP 1 & 2 to finally finish the drafts on image sizes so we can do the content negotiation on the server; where it belongs. The whole reason this came about was there was no smart way to get IMG to handle it and there is a use case where CSS media queries (which is not really css 3.x either) do not work. You should be using CSS but when you can't PICTURE is what you use if you can't configure your server (I would suggest some JS that sets a cookie until the browsers finally start sending the info.)
I don't believe it, show me some proof Mexico does more than China. You must be measuring things in a goofy way. I have been looking at the "Made in" labels on everything out of habit since the 90s; I know I'm not the best sample but it does give me enough to notice some changes over time. Japan actually sells us a ton of stuff-- but they have it made in China too... I've seen stats showing we get more from Japan than China, but it was more of a number game because it was still largely Chinese... (because they outsource a lot too.) The polluting stuff nobody wants, everybody outsources that to China. Your Mexican Ford car may have some American labor and more Mexican labor but it probably contains a great many Chinese products... the ones that naturally are cheaper to get from over there.... how does one measure it? by weight (then the steel gets bias) by number of products (china likely wins) by cost, by margin, by total $ traded? what you pick greatly decides the outcome.
In the end, I bet you that the CO2 costs migrated to China, just as labor costs push migration
Hell, about HALF the eggs you eat in the USA come from china! I have info 1st hand from somebody who packs bulk Chinese eggs into USA made cartons for the store-- which say USA on the carton, but the eggs... from China mega farms. Now our organic Chickens are being shipped to China to be hacked up and then back to us! WTF? OIL needs to become more expensive so all this shipping cost turns into the new tariff - physics imposed-- since mankind can't seem to look out for their fellow man.
Being a realist, I know the system is so far gone with corruption (which heavily leveraged capitalism) that the democracy has been functionally dead for decades and despotism is the destination. Despotism is inevitable, as Franklin predicted but the end times for this democracy are upon us.
Finding compatible solutions with you believers in the faith is not really worth it; the few sane conservatives who are not blinded with emotion have no influence over their mob of dolts goosestepping us into dystopia. Sure there are "left wing" bad outcomes but that is not anywhere near today; or possible in my lifetime.
The fanatics of today won't allow actual capitalism, they are too easily sold on economic anarchy by the powerful who only like whatever gives them power/wealth-- capitalism can get them to the top so they like it, but once they have power they hate capitalism and undermine it. The whole situation today is painfully ironic. You can try to educate those who will listen to you into reasonable positions or you can join the other side so that their lost positions and compromises steer more towards your ends.
Problem with many of the market solutions I've heard so far is they involve way too much trust in a market system which has already run a muck. Carbon trading was the most naive thing I couldn't believe how many fell for it. (even those who were willing to accept the known flaws... it only really worked if you made everybody join the market and most played reasonably fair... at which point you may as well tax and/or regulate because that would be probably be easier.)
Anybody find it odd that the skeptics (if given enough time) end up talking about Climate Engineering?
The very science and experts they distrust as part of some left wing global conspiracy are supposed to engineer (use science) to make the planet so they can continue to do whatever they wish? WTF, is it with this new age "science will save us" religious-like belief that people have? So many of them are religious types or superstitious (same thing to me) as well and yet they see no parallels?
Why do smart people have to continually be saving the morons from themselves? You'd think we'd never have evolved if this was always this case.
What you propose is an import tariff and possibly a local carbon tax. This will not work because: A) Any new taxes are for socialists. period. no compromise.
B) Lowering taxes is good but a completely separate issue with raising taxes; you can not link the two no matter how logical. See A.
C) Tariffs are anti-capitalist. for communists... insert your favorite slander here... The invisible hand of (god) the free market shall not be shackled by tariffs, blasphemer!
D) The US Chamber of Commerce is always right and they oppose such things (please ignore the Chinese behind the curtain. No, we won't show you our member list.)
E) Big Government. Government is only for shooting protesters and executing criminals; how dare you socialists demand government interfere with the market! (aka our lobbyists and "donors")
China makes everything, for everybody. We pay them to do this, part of the reason everybody pays them is because they are willing and we are not. Since we are not immediately and directly impacted by CO2...plus it is invisible... we are simply too shallow to realize it harms us indirectly. Just as people shop at Walmart and wonder why their jobs disappeared (forcing them to shop at Walmart more.)
Is it MY fault I shot you in the foot, when you told me to do it?
1st) You make police video everything they do. 2nd) having won that battle, then you setup procedural rules and a review/revise cycle which feeds into: 3rd) having won that battle, then you setup laws to define use 4th) having won that battle, you give somebody oversight and punitive powers for enforcement.
You can't have it all or know it all from the start. If you start out defeated, you'll never win. It might be a waste of money to buy cameras that won't be used but at least they exist; someday.... after a big tragic event, the next step forward could be taken.
We need laws with limited length, scope, and legalese; how to do this without breaking the process (current dysfunction aside,) is beyond me at this time. The iterative process which is required is greatly undermined by infrequent massive bloated and disjointed patches.
Slippery Slope is just something everybody should ban from use or simply learn what it is before bringing it up. Parent is correct to cite one when bringing it up. Skipping steps in the chain is invalid logic; however, people should be allowed to summarize and imply in an online posting and not create a long detailed formal syllogism every time they want to gloat... Besides:
As far as characterizations and predictions; that stuff is never logical. If you want to stick to deductive logic (real logic) then you can't do that much. A correctly diagnosed psychopath is likely to act like one and it is not wrong to say "I told you so" when the evidence bares out the prediction. What these people are doing is citing evidence of how accurate their past predictions are. Sure, that does not mean they arrived at it any better than random chance; that takes a track record, but you don't get one without by pointing out success. If you are psychic and that results in success, that is fine by me (it never will.) So, if you beat chance then it is skill and/or insight and SOME recognition is deserved. If only we kept records and referred to them so the talented people would be identified... but when we can, with pundits etc. we do not do this and so the same wrongheaded fools get the audience.
When economists don't even read Marx, we have fallen into a idiotic debate where even the experts don't know shit. Nobody knows what Marx did or what his work was about, but that doesn't stop people (especially Americans) from bringing it up.
Godwin's harmful excuse to ignore history for the sake of sane discussion should be applied to discussions with Marx because unlike the Nazi, people don't know anything about Marx or Marxism but they do grow up learning enough about the Nazi to realize overstatements (well, most the time they can.)
We are in a place now where you can't point out real Fascism (which isn't Nazi but that is another issue) but can slander anything opposed to Fascism as Marxism.
It is classic crony capitalism and never had anything to do with public health. Just look into the history of it, the industry didn't want to pay to trash the toxic waste so they found a way to get payed to chuck it without any real studies to back up the move (just stuff about teeth which didn't include diluted ingestion. Which later studies proved didn't help teeth but the system here is so broken it continues anyway.)
There is likely more to the conclusions than that.
1) Humans are not logical. You can't take one solution and apply it to another similar aspect of humanity.
2) Humans are chaotic fractals. Broad trends make them all nearly the same but some demographics may exist that do not nicely fit into expectations (psychology relies upon it;) aside from that, small details are as random as snowflakes (and still not likely without fractal like patterns on another level, which is why I used snowflakes as the metaphor.)
Just because we can't comprehend how humans work doesn't mean there isn't a difficult non-linear equation and/or fractal description. Fractals are all over the randomness of nature and it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume they apply beyond certain physical traits. We can only study the problem and do the best we can; those of us without the time and resources will just have rely upon elite experts (aka scientists... before you bash the soft sciences, I suggest you look up the word science.)
NSA doesn't give a rip. Their job is to get into Tor. If they find out military or CIA secrets it is not a problem because they are on the same side. Ideally, they'd find exploits or put them in and patch it for the military's client only... but their primary goal is to get themselves in, secondary goal is to help the other agencies (so they are not going to publicly give Tor patches... or if they do decide that is more important, do you think they would be public about it? I would think they would purposely leak patches.)
These fanatics would make the same arguments for public roads, public right of way, water, power, sewer, heating gas and highway system. They do in fact and have made great headway into those areas, it is to the point where serious discussions happen on the privatization of the air happen without laughter at how ridiculous it is.
It's like pyromaniacs have been given influence over fire safety... not all fire is good, they don't realize it because they are mentally ill. One has to wonder about these fanatic capitalists...
The app doesn't use your microphone; or you deny it, or whatever. So the app uses the gyro to figure out what you are saying anyway - you have no idea it can even do this because it doesn't use the microphone. 3rd parties could AUDIT and secure the software for government or corporate use--- and it would still record gyro information.
A background app could listen constantly even while other apps have the mic if it can background and use the gyro.
A hacked app with only gyro access...
Think about the story weeks ago about using video cameras detecting vibrations to hear things and what next gen phones could do with that-- similar situation (but crazy battery usage even on futuristic more powerful phones.)
Future work: ID which person in the family is carrying the phone using the gyros?
If not for Netflix taking on the fight, the ISPs would be attacking torrents as a huge problem along with propaganda ("OMG, think of the children!" or "OMG, terrorists use torrents!")
Torrents do not have protection like Netflix does. YouTube might also be a target, again be happy that torrents are not the #1 threat to ISP screwing their customers. When they were the #1 user, data caps, QoS games, tampering with packets and other schemes were developing. Thank you Netflix and YouTube for slowing the assault; ISPs had to give in a little due to customer demand for Netflix.
Geodesic domes. Most area covered with the least material and most strength. You would need something to keep in an atmosphere and geodesic domes are the clear solution.
But seriously, it has to be underground-- Mars is way too cold and has little atmosphere. How can people forget how crazy cold it gets on Mars? Do people not know that our air freezes in their winter? You'd have to insulate that water in the roof and heat it. We have troubles in Antarctica we should work out 1st.
You are better off waiting until we can figure out how to jump start it's core or devise a sun shield. Robots can do everything better and cheaper-- there is no good reason to go. People just need to admit they want it because it's cool; it has little practical benefit. NASA used to do a lot of planetary science; why not work on that and try to make that cool instead?
I started on a project with a physicist (who was a farmer) to do automated farming robots which were unlike all the previous projects (affordable and open, no need for GPS either... plus we'd pick the ideal kind of plants initially. We had green houses figured out too.) Those other projects are usually jokes, just dressing for a fairly typical student project. We began the initial designing work preparing for grant writing and that whole process. Then after some thought we decided it was not a good idea to replace the already poor farmers of the world with automation. Perhaps this is why previous projects ended up as silly exercises?
We decided to not be part of the problem; plus there was likely going to be politics involved. Keep in mind, a cheap solution would be a threat for most the worlds farmers, who are not high tech like the ones in the 1st world nations. The 1st world nations are likely dependent on their huge subsidizes even with their technological labor savings; for those nations, keeping industrial agriculture is about national security and politics.
Not relevant. Doesn't matter if psychology is a science or not.
It's partially "science". Of course you can play with the definition for a long time but the general definition is that it is a systematic study of a topic. The "scientific method" is not required in many definitions of science. Psychology is a study of the human mind (which one could argue is beyond logical understanding by beings with such limited minds in the first place.) If you only allow science to apply to those who use "the method" all the time you have a problem.
Actually, they have courses on the philosophy of science which greatly undermines the hard sciences when you get into the details of it. It is not easy to define a science. Things become tricky as one wants to keep sciences they like... Inductive reasoning for example (not math induction) is a cornerstone in all the sciences and that is anecdotal and therefore illogical. As such a course will point out at some point before they make many arguments justifying and defining when one should accept inductive non-logical reasoning. (deductive being logical, inductive only being logical when you accept some base premises on the definition of logical... which is required to get anywhere. pure logic is not that useful.) It's been over a decade since I dwelt with the topic and I don't like to give useful fuel to the anti-science people.
Psychology is a formal systematic study of the human mind; it is therefore a science and since it's goal is to find the true nature of the mind it would be the best profession to go to on such matters. They don't study it simply to pass the time... it is applied to control your behavior already whether you are aware of it or not. Deny physics all you want, you still will go splat... deny psychology all you want, you can still be driven insane or buy shit you don't want.
Evidence? This is not like any other technology advancement; if you can't see that you are daft.
That point is enough to undermine the analogy that it is like all previous technology advances and therefore won't eliminate jobs.
YOU are the one claiming that this is just an analogy with the past; you people have to back up your claims since you are the ones making them; the skeptics on my side do not have to prove jack. Without your analogy, you can't claim there is nothing to worry about because it's a real possibility. That said, I could make predictions and claims along those lines but as speculation, it is not something I can prove - but merely show current trends and make reasonable projections based upon those. Confidence levels then become the point of contention.
I would suggest you look into the history of planned obsolescence. There is so much data backing the ARTIFICIAL JOBS that planned obsolescence creates that it's just an unquestioned accepted practice; viewed as the natural behavior of businesses. Sure it creates more profits and that may be the sole motives, but for now those profits can't be had without jobs. Today we have an ever increasing need for MORE advanced marketing because we never have enough demand in the market (except for fads.) The system is being propped up heavily TODAY, not to mention that it requires exploitation on many levels...
Even if you believe what you do; belief being the proper term >:-) there is going to be a huge upset as large job markets are eliminated and people try to migrate into new areas. Then you have to consider the size of those markets compared with past job collapse to job shift situations and the parallel timing as the tech spreads.
How many Ford or GM cars back them up after 100,000? All parts or just certain parts? This doesn't seem to be that unusual and I've not heard any claims about 30% failure rates-- given how anything bad with Tesla gets some news coverage and provokes online defenders I would think we'd be hearing about major problems.
None of my past cars were able to get anything out of the maker after 100,000 miles.
I've heard this argument in a million ways for many years. It is an appeal to history and while the points are usually true (because it's easier than making stuff up) it alone is not the full argument. The fallacy being made each time is one of false analogy; or over simplification. A classic debate between judgement calls on the validity of analogies. Often a slippery slope fallacy gets used (by either side!)
As TFA...TFV points out that this is fundamentally different than all the other technology changes so it is illogical to make the traditional analogy. The outcome is not certain; however, one can't simply appeal to past arguments because the similarity. As far as future technology prediction being along the lines of flying cars, a lot of that stuff is not unrealistic but the problem is the outlandish stuff is more entertaining to "report." He addresses this as well by pointing out CURRENT technology. Like Windows upgrades, it takes years before adoption is widespread... meanwhile newer iterations are under development.
Slashdot Mirror
Simulations are loosely similar to doing unit testing in programming.
The random chaos involved is not purely random; just way way beyond human comprehension. The statistical patterns may exist in the noise to be discovered someday - no, it won't describe the system in any reproducible way but it will increase accuracy for increasingly detailed predictions. Accuracy is inversely related to the level of prediction. We don't know the curve between these two without a great deal of work. Think of breaking encryption, brute force can be impractical but if you apply statistics (finding weakness patterns) you greatly reduce the amount of work guessing (huge understatement, you go from billions of billions to just thousands.)
I remember the models for my region, all but 1 said we'd get more rain and that 1 said it would be the same. None of them said less rain. We've had more rain as predicted by the simulation (the span was about a decade, it was climate not weather prediction I'm citing here.) Also, if they ran 25 (I think it was just 4) and most were correct - then it was a good simulation. If just 1 matched reality, it is still a good simulation! The problem is when no simulation remotely matches the outcome; then you have a LOT of work to do. Like I said, it's fluid dynamics, the longer it runs and the more detailed the greater the parallel universe of possible outcomes.
Climate change:
It's extremely general and obvious ever since they figured out Venus. Then it was figuring out how much heat... and after that the complex predictions so we know how much is too much. That is done too. What we are doing now is trying to get even more detail for some reason; which probably has to do more with money and political long term planning at this point. So we have ignorant people dismissing the solved problems while citing the extraneous work as it approaches the limits of understanding. Bringing up weather prediction is even more extreme in the ignorance.
You know this stuff wouldn't be controversial if we lived on the moon... planetary and climate science wouldn't apply to us and upset certain people.
Radioactive materials concentrate up the food chain so I suppose this is one way to let nature clean it up for you.
Radioactive Germans probably costs more to the national health service than buying the meat. Meat that only makes you sick, probably doesn't cost much; however, cancer is expensive.
Perhaps it is a conspiracy, we don't want some Blond Haired, Blue eyed, big nosed man with a german accent calling himself PiggyMan! I'm sure the Muppets have a job for him...
I am like this guy; looked into all the same stuff over the years.
Additions:
Flywheels: Dept. E helped develop viable designs which scale long ago but the costs keep it a niche product for data centers needing a buffer while the gas generators turn on.
Elevated Mass: ridiculous idea from a green website last year by some german engineer or professor. When I did the math, I figured I'd have to move the whole house 3m upward to get enough mass/power as a $30,000 battery pack (it's more feasible if you have a cliff near bye and your needs are tiny.)
Employer car charging. Not a time-shift; however, storing the massive amount of energy a car uses during the day only to dump that back into the car at night wastes a great deal of energy from all the conversion in that process. Employer parking lots charging to recharge employee cars would make electric cars more realistic for people who are off grid.
Public take over of the grid. The electric grid largely follows the roads (public land, usually public roads) and should be run by the public so we can stop having corrupt grid owners fighting against the distributed grid the future demands. Power suppliers can compete on the grid just as businesses compete while using the roads. This would also lower grid costs as governments are better able to think long term and bury high voltage DC power lines which reduce long term system costs but require upfront investment. This would also foster a market for power storage as the prices on such a grid could spike as a cloud passes bye... it would become a stock market like game.... (where Mr. Burns really could provide by blocking out the sun!)
Even if you can simulate every atom in the atmosphere for such a situation, we are talking about fluid dynamics! The least predictable thing not really known to man or god. Best you can do is guess general trends for short periods of time or in the case of climate models, you have to get extremely general to be at all accurate.
This is worse than accurately simulating a human brain and ending up with intelligence (without preloading a living brain scan; even so, it would be silly to think the machine would predict YOU. just as an instant clone of you would diverge from you.)
The 5.1 label was just to separate it out, the intention of most was to have it live so that there is no new version. As you probably know already, most the major stuff is not directly under HTML5 but are side groups which either are under HTML5 or they are separate but are treated like they are part of HTML5 (openGL or web sockets for example.) New tags like MAIN, DETAIL, FIGURE or PICTURE, well those ended up in HTML5 but were not around or changed quite a bit. Firefox still doesn't support DETAIL even though it has had decent documentation for quite a while now (it didn't for a long time...)
The mature people involved realized that version numbers do not mean a whole lot because vendors market themselves as supporting "STANDARD X.Y" but lack full support or correct support (MS being a great example.) There is little practical reason for versions because they do not mean a whole lot and real world developers have to work around mixed user support anyway.
If you don't like the PICTURE tag, try to get HTTP 1 & 2 to finally finish the drafts on image sizes so we can do the content negotiation on the server; where it belongs. The whole reason this came about was there was no smart way to get IMG to handle it and there is a use case where CSS media queries (which is not really css 3.x either) do not work. You should be using CSS but when you can't PICTURE is what you use if you can't configure your server (I would suggest some JS that sets a cookie until the browsers finally start sending the info.)
I don't believe it, show me some proof Mexico does more than China. You must be measuring things in a goofy way. I have been looking at the "Made in" labels on everything out of habit since the 90s; I know I'm not the best sample but it does give me enough to notice some changes over time. Japan actually sells us a ton of stuff-- but they have it made in China too... I've seen stats showing we get more from Japan than China, but it was more of a number game because it was still largely Chinese... (because they outsource a lot too.) The polluting stuff nobody wants, everybody outsources that to China. Your Mexican Ford car may have some American labor and more Mexican labor but it probably contains a great many Chinese products... the ones that naturally are cheaper to get from over there. ... how does one measure it? by weight (then the steel gets bias) by number of products (china likely wins) by cost, by margin, by total $ traded? what you pick greatly decides the outcome.
In the end, I bet you that the CO2 costs migrated to China, just as labor costs push migration
Hell, about HALF the eggs you eat in the USA come from china! I have info 1st hand from somebody who packs bulk Chinese eggs into USA made cartons for the store-- which say USA on the carton, but the eggs... from China mega farms. Now our organic Chickens are being shipped to China to be hacked up and then back to us! WTF? OIL needs to become more expensive so all this shipping cost turns into the new tariff - physics imposed-- since mankind can't seem to look out for their fellow man.
Being a realist, I know the system is so far gone with corruption (which heavily leveraged capitalism) that the democracy has been functionally dead for decades and despotism is the destination. Despotism is inevitable, as Franklin predicted but the end times for this democracy are upon us.
Finding compatible solutions with you believers in the faith is not really worth it; the few sane conservatives who are not blinded with emotion have no influence over their mob of dolts goosestepping us into dystopia. Sure there are "left wing" bad outcomes but that is not anywhere near today; or possible in my lifetime.
The fanatics of today won't allow actual capitalism, they are too easily sold on economic anarchy by the powerful who only like whatever gives them power/wealth-- capitalism can get them to the top so they like it, but once they have power they hate capitalism and undermine it. The whole situation today is painfully ironic. You can try to educate those who will listen to you into reasonable positions or you can join the other side so that their lost positions and compromises steer more towards your ends.
Problem with many of the market solutions I've heard so far is they involve way too much trust in a market system which has already run a muck. Carbon trading was the most naive thing I couldn't believe how many fell for it. (even those who were willing to accept the known flaws... it only really worked if you made everybody join the market and most played reasonably fair... at which point you may as well tax and/or regulate because that would be probably be easier.)
Anybody find it odd that the skeptics (if given enough time) end up talking about Climate Engineering?
The very science and experts they distrust as part of some left wing global conspiracy are supposed to engineer (use science) to make the planet so they can continue to do whatever they wish? WTF, is it with this new age "science will save us" religious-like belief that people have? So many of them are religious types or superstitious (same thing to me) as well and yet they see no parallels?
Why do smart people have to continually be saving the morons from themselves? You'd think we'd never have evolved if this was always this case.
What you propose is an import tariff and possibly a local carbon tax. This will not work because:
A) Any new taxes are for socialists. period. no compromise.
B) Lowering taxes is good but a completely separate issue with raising taxes; you can not link the two no matter how logical. See A.
C) Tariffs are anti-capitalist. for communists... insert your favorite slander here... The invisible hand of (god) the free market shall not be shackled by tariffs, blasphemer!
D) The US Chamber of Commerce is always right and they oppose such things (please ignore the Chinese behind the curtain. No, we won't show you our member list.)
E) Big Government. Government is only for shooting protesters and executing criminals; how dare you socialists demand government interfere with the market! (aka our lobbyists and "donors")
China makes everything, for everybody. We pay them to do this, part of the reason everybody pays them is because they are willing and we are not. Since we are not immediately and directly impacted by CO2 ...plus it is invisible... we are simply too shallow to realize it harms us indirectly. Just as people shop at Walmart and wonder why their jobs disappeared (forcing them to shop at Walmart more.)
Is it MY fault I shot you in the foot, when you told me to do it?
1st) You make police video everything they do.
2nd) having won that battle, then you setup procedural rules and a review/revise cycle which feeds into:
3rd) having won that battle, then you setup laws to define use
4th) having won that battle, you give somebody oversight and punitive powers for enforcement.
You can't have it all or know it all from the start. If you start out defeated, you'll never win. It might be a waste of money to buy cameras that won't be used but at least they exist; someday.... after a big tragic event, the next step forward could be taken.
We need laws with limited length, scope, and legalese; how to do this without breaking the process (current dysfunction aside,) is beyond me at this time. The iterative process which is required is greatly undermined by infrequent massive bloated and disjointed patches.
Slippery Slope is just something everybody should ban from use or simply learn what it is before bringing it up. Parent is correct to cite one when bringing it up. Skipping steps in the chain is invalid logic; however, people should be allowed to summarize and imply in an online posting and not create a long detailed formal syllogism every time they want to gloat... Besides:
As far as characterizations and predictions; that stuff is never logical. If you want to stick to deductive logic (real logic) then you can't do that much. A correctly diagnosed psychopath is likely to act like one and it is not wrong to say "I told you so" when the evidence bares out the prediction. What these people are doing is citing evidence of how accurate their past predictions are. Sure, that does not mean they arrived at it any better than random chance; that takes a track record, but you don't get one without by pointing out success. If you are psychic and that results in success, that is fine by me (it never will.) So, if you beat chance then it is skill and/or insight and SOME recognition is deserved. If only we kept records and referred to them so the talented people would be identified... but when we can, with pundits etc. we do not do this and so the same wrongheaded fools get the audience.
When economists don't even read Marx, we have fallen into a idiotic debate where even the experts don't know shit. Nobody knows what Marx did or what his work was about, but that doesn't stop people (especially Americans) from bringing it up.
Godwin's harmful excuse to ignore history for the sake of sane discussion should be applied to discussions with Marx because unlike the Nazi, people don't know anything about Marx or Marxism but they do grow up learning enough about the Nazi to realize overstatements (well, most the time they can.)
We are in a place now where you can't point out real Fascism (which isn't Nazi but that is another issue) but can slander anything opposed to Fascism as Marxism.
It is classic crony capitalism and never had anything to do with public health. Just look into the history of it, the industry didn't want to pay to trash the toxic waste so they found a way to get payed to chuck it without any real studies to back up the move (just stuff about teeth which didn't include diluted ingestion. Which later studies proved didn't help teeth but the system here is so broken it continues anyway.)
There is likely more to the conclusions than that.
1) Humans are not logical. You can't take one solution and apply it to another similar aspect of humanity.
2) Humans are chaotic fractals. Broad trends make them all nearly the same but some demographics may exist that do not nicely fit into expectations (psychology relies upon it;) aside from that, small details are as random as snowflakes (and still not likely without fractal like patterns on another level, which is why I used snowflakes as the metaphor.)
Just because we can't comprehend how humans work doesn't mean there isn't a difficult non-linear equation and/or fractal description. Fractals are all over the randomness of nature and it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume they apply beyond certain physical traits. We can only study the problem and do the best we can; those of us without the time and resources will just have rely upon elite experts (aka scientists... before you bash the soft sciences, I suggest you look up the word science.)
Disclaimer, I'm not in the soft sciences.
NSA doesn't give a rip. Their job is to get into Tor. If they find out military or CIA secrets it is not a problem because they are on the same side. Ideally, they'd find exploits or put them in and patch it for the military's client only... but their primary goal is to get themselves in, secondary goal is to help the other agencies (so they are not going to publicly give Tor patches... or if they do decide that is more important, do you think they would be public about it? I would think they would purposely leak patches.)
These fanatics would make the same arguments for public roads, public right of way, water, power, sewer, heating gas and highway system. They do in fact and have made great headway into those areas, it is to the point where serious discussions happen on the privatization of the air happen without laughter at how ridiculous it is.
It's like pyromaniacs have been given influence over fire safety... not all fire is good, they don't realize it because they are mentally ill. One has to wonder about these fanatic capitalists...
The app doesn't use your microphone; or you deny it, or whatever. So the app uses the gyro to figure out what you are saying anyway - you have no idea it can even do this because it doesn't use the microphone. 3rd parties could AUDIT and secure the software for government or corporate use--- and it would still record gyro information.
A background app could listen constantly even while other apps have the mic if it can background and use the gyro.
A hacked app with only gyro access...
Think about the story weeks ago about using video cameras detecting vibrations to hear things and what next gen phones could do with that-- similar situation (but crazy battery usage even on futuristic more powerful phones.)
Future work:
ID which person in the family is carrying the phone using the gyros?
If not for Netflix taking on the fight, the ISPs would be attacking torrents as a huge problem along with propaganda ("OMG, think of the children!" or "OMG, terrorists use torrents!")
Torrents do not have protection like Netflix does. YouTube might also be a target, again be happy that torrents are not the #1 threat to ISP screwing their customers. When they were the #1 user, data caps, QoS games, tampering with packets and other schemes were developing. Thank you Netflix and YouTube for slowing the assault; ISPs had to give in a little due to customer demand for Netflix.
Geodesic domes. Most area covered with the least material and most strength. You would need something to keep in an atmosphere and geodesic domes are the clear solution.
But seriously, it has to be underground-- Mars is way too cold and has little atmosphere. How can people forget how crazy cold it gets on Mars? Do people not know that our air freezes in their winter? You'd have to insulate that water in the roof and heat it. We have troubles in Antarctica we should work out 1st.
You are better off waiting until we can figure out how to jump start it's core or devise a sun shield. Robots can do everything better and cheaper-- there is no good reason to go. People just need to admit they want it because it's cool; it has little practical benefit. NASA used to do a lot of planetary science; why not work on that and try to make that cool instead?
I started on a project with a physicist (who was a farmer) to do automated farming robots which were unlike all the previous projects (affordable and open, no need for GPS either... plus we'd pick the ideal kind of plants initially. We had green houses figured out too.) Those other projects are usually jokes, just dressing for a fairly typical student project. We began the initial designing work preparing for grant writing and that whole process. Then after some thought we decided it was not a good idea to replace the already poor farmers of the world with automation. Perhaps this is why previous projects ended up as silly exercises?
We decided to not be part of the problem; plus there was likely going to be politics involved. Keep in mind, a cheap solution would be a threat for most the worlds farmers, who are not high tech like the ones in the 1st world nations. The 1st world nations are likely dependent on their huge subsidizes even with their technological labor savings; for those nations, keeping industrial agriculture is about national security and politics.
Not relevant. Doesn't matter if psychology is a science or not.
It's partially "science". Of course you can play with the definition for a long time but the general definition is that it is a systematic study of a topic. The "scientific method" is not required in many definitions of science. Psychology is a study of the human mind (which one could argue is beyond logical understanding by beings with such limited minds in the first place.) If you only allow science to apply to those who use "the method" all the time you have a problem.
Actually, they have courses on the philosophy of science which greatly undermines the hard sciences when you get into the details of it. It is not easy to define a science. Things become tricky as one wants to keep sciences they like... Inductive reasoning for example (not math induction) is a cornerstone in all the sciences and that is anecdotal and therefore illogical. As such a course will point out at some point before they make many arguments justifying and defining when one should accept inductive non-logical reasoning. (deductive being logical, inductive only being logical when you accept some base premises on the definition of logical... which is required to get anywhere. pure logic is not that useful.) It's been over a decade since I dwelt with the topic and I don't like to give useful fuel to the anti-science people.
Psychology is a formal systematic study of the human mind; it is therefore a science and since it's goal is to find the true nature of the mind it would be the best profession to go to on such matters. They don't study it simply to pass the time... it is applied to control your behavior already whether you are aware of it or not. Deny physics all you want, you still will go splat... deny psychology all you want, you can still be driven insane or buy shit you don't want.
Evidence? This is not like any other technology advancement; if you can't see that you are daft.
That point is enough to undermine the analogy that it is like all previous technology advances and therefore won't eliminate jobs.
YOU are the one claiming that this is just an analogy with the past; you people have to back up your claims since you are the ones making them; the skeptics on my side do not have to prove jack. Without your analogy, you can't claim there is nothing to worry about because it's a real possibility. That said, I could make predictions and claims along those lines but as speculation, it is not something I can prove - but merely show current trends and make reasonable projections based upon those. Confidence levels then become the point of contention.
I would suggest you look into the history of planned obsolescence. There is so much data backing the ARTIFICIAL JOBS that planned obsolescence creates that it's just an unquestioned accepted practice; viewed as the natural behavior of businesses. Sure it creates more profits and that may be the sole motives, but for now those profits can't be had without jobs.
Today we have an ever increasing need for MORE advanced marketing because we never have enough demand in the market (except for fads.) The system is being propped up heavily TODAY, not to mention that it requires exploitation on many levels...
Even if you believe what you do; belief being the proper term >:-) there is going to be a huge upset as large job markets are eliminated and people try to migrate into new areas. Then you have to consider the size of those markets compared with past job collapse to job shift situations and the parallel timing as the tech spreads.
How many Ford or GM cars back them up after 100,000? All parts or just certain parts? This doesn't seem to be that unusual and I've not heard any claims about 30% failure rates-- given how anything bad with Tesla gets some news coverage and provokes online defenders I would think we'd be hearing about major problems.
None of my past cars were able to get anything out of the maker after 100,000 miles.
I've heard this argument in a million ways for many years. It is an appeal to history and while the points are usually true (because it's easier than making stuff up) it alone is not the full argument. The fallacy being made each time is one of false analogy; or over simplification. A classic debate between judgement calls on the validity of analogies. Often a slippery slope fallacy gets used (by either side!)
As TFA...TFV points out that this is fundamentally different than all the other technology changes so it is illogical to make the traditional analogy. The outcome is not certain; however, one can't simply appeal to past arguments because the similarity. As far as future technology prediction being along the lines of flying cars, a lot of that stuff is not unrealistic but the problem is the outlandish stuff is more entertaining to "report." He addresses this as well by pointing out CURRENT technology. Like Windows upgrades, it takes years before adoption is widespread... meanwhile newer iterations are under development.