Have a cheap, easy way to store energy for days without leakage? You just became the next Rockefeller / Carnegie/ Vanderbilt / Gates.
Laptops, phones, electric cars, solar panels companies, and nuclear power companies (they can't transmit the power very far so the plants are uncomfortably close to cities) will beat your door down trying to shove money.
100% accuracy can be misleading. Are they talking 0% false negatives, 0% false positives, or both?
I could easily see a situation where it has 0% false positives, but a high false negative rate.
That is, I could claim that my "Presidential Identification" is 100% right if I said no one I met was the President of the US. No false positives because I never said anyone was President.
Similarly, someone could do it the other way around, claiming everyone was the President and have 100% accuracy because I identified every single President in the sample.
3) You don't have to design so much for the human form.
------- I do note they didn't tell us how long the flight lasts. The video shows him flying for only about 75 seconds. I bet that's about the maximum amount of time you can go without re-fueling.
Speed reading is like downloading data but not indexing it. You get the general gist, but it is NOT the same as reading for comprehensive.
Someone that speed reads a text book has far inferior recall - both immediately and years later.
Note this is something that many people do not understand about AI's either. They won't be able to just download something and learn/understand it instantly. Like humans, they will have to spend a lot of processing cycles integrating the information into their memory.
This demonstrates a POSSIBLE answer. Right now we don't think the situation is anywhere near bad enough to warrant the major problems caused by the proposed solution.
Far more likely is the complete removal of all coal plants, replaced by green technology. Combine that with a cessation of building fossil fuel burning cars, and you have a major shift.
While not as good as the possible solution from the actual post, this is a far more likely one, and would still surprise most people. The benefits would take a while to appear, but they would be real.
I see no problem in gagging the warrant for a year - or even two.
But if after two years, you:
1) Have not arrested, tried and charged the man,
2) Have not even found evidence of a crime, sufficient to extend the warrant
and
3) Are so lazy and uncaring of legal rights that you think you shouldn't have to go to court and prove the right to extend the gag order.
Then:
A) You are a fool that should be fired
and
B) You are not trying to prevent criminals and enemies of the state from figuring out what you are dong, but instead are trying to prevent the law abiding American Public - including the Courts - to understand how badly you are violating their rights.
-------- All gag orders on warrants should have a time limit - of less than 5 years.
The government should be required to provide a report on the results of all criminal warrants after those 5 years, listing how many resulted in convictions, how many prosecutions, how many were worthless, etc. etc. etc.
Track and graph them - and requiring lawyers with bad records of too many worthless warrants to explain or be fired.
It also lets the courts sue for harassment when we find out the SOB put a gag warrant on his ex-wife's new lover.
Coal itself is relatively cheap, mainly because it is a lot easier to transport - you can do it in trucks, not pipelines.
The EPA has had reasonable restrictions on what any new coal plants can burn (does not affect old plants). They can't emit more than 1100 pounds per megawatt hour . Note, this compares with a 1000 lbs limit for natural gas plants.
But to make a power plant that emits 10% more than natural gas plants emit, means the coal power plant costs so much money to run that it isn't worthwhile (compared to natural gas plants).
If you remove that limitation, then new coal plants could be created, creating new demand for coal. This is the regulation they are complaining about.
Yes, this regulation is clearly a good one, obviously MORE than fair, but if someone was stupid enough to eliminate that rule, someone might make more of a profit selling coal.
Also, regulatory uncertainty is caused by the fact that sane people keep trying to apply this fair rule to EXISTING coal plants, not just the new ones.
Different government agencies use different price per human life saved methodologies. Most agencies, such as the car regulation, pollution, etc. regulate only if the cost is less than $10 million per life saved. The EPA sets it at 7.4 million. Some agencies won't even require safety regulations if the cost exceeds $2 million.
Terrorism based agencies are a radical shift. When terrorism is involved, the idiots are willing to spend up to $180 million to save a single life. (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/07/costbenefit_ana.html)
I propose that we legislate a maximum cost per human life saved at $20 million (adjusted for inflation, annually). This would wipe out most of the stupid expenses by federal anti-terrorism agencies, but still allow them to do their job.
As for your opposing world view, I believe it is garbage. Everyone always thinks "their" group was better.
What usually happens is that when group (A) is wrong, group A2 fixes the problem. But group A mostly can't admit they were wrong, so they claim the 'fix' that A2 did is really a problem.
Prime example is the 'entitled' feeling you discuss. It's roots is in the belief that rights are you actual rights, rather than privileges. As in , blacks are entitled to a fair trial, Jews are entitled to go to law school, women are entitled to an equal wage.
But if you disagree with the above entitlements, you get shouted down for being a racist, anti-Semitic misogynist.
So instead you complain about a generic "entitlement" culture of today's youths.
Similar thing happening now with the new sexual liberation. The backlash is about how we are 'oppressing' good honest Christians that just want to live by their sincere beliefs.
If your sincere beliefs are hateful, bigotry, then yes, we are not going to let you live by those beliefs - at least not to the extent that they infringe on other people's actual, real civil rights.
1) Given: People will take a random USB stick and plug it into a computer.
2) Conclusion: Only a moron will design an Operating system that automatically runs software on a USB stick. Any sane OS designer should declare all USB sticks to be suspect, and require an explicit confirmation before running any executable on it.
The minimal convenience of having auto-run for USB drives is far over-ridden by the huge security leak.
Design products for the people that will run it, not theoretical angels that will read and obey your instruction manuals - especially when they DO NOT COME WITH INSTRUCTION MANUALS anymore.
I agree that this isn't surprising. I would add that the moderately oppressive societies are a special case of ignorance.
Basically, in the cases where the society has oppressed them a little bit, they have been taught by the culture that it's OK. They think "eh, this isn't so bad, I don't really need privacy, it's OK if the government takes it away, the government hasn't truly abused it's power."
But that only works for a while. Once the government expands the use of censorship and privacy invasions, people realize exactly how bad they are being screwed, and how badly they need privacy.
Where the culture is pro-privacy from the beginning, they realize that just because government isn't abusing something right now doesn't mean they won't in the future, so they have developed a culture that values privacy and makes full use of it.
1) This is a disease, not a genetic issue. Make no sense at all to 'clone' someone to deal with a genetic issue.
2) Note the long term lines I declared. That means the clones get to decide, not anyone else. It's all voluntary, by adults.
3) As I clearly stated, this was to deal with situations where neither clone should die. Yes, there is a small (3% chance of dying from donating a kidney, liver, pancreas, etc.)
Yes, you can bring up evil ideas for some douchebag to do. I fully admit it is possible to abuse cloning technology.
I am not talking about that, I am talking about legitimate uses of cloning that do not have the ethical problems you are bringing up - and claim that the possibility of abuse should not preclude non-abusive use of technology. We don't home DVR (DVD or tape) recording because some other people use it to steal shows. Nor should we outlaw ethical uses of cloning because certain unethical uses also exist.
As per my sig, please respond to the ACTUAL thing I wrote, rather than what some idiot thought I meant.
1) A human can live after donating a kidney, lung, pancreas, bone marrow, or liver.
2) There are a lot of diseases that slowly affect those organs. A prime example is IgA Nepropathy can take 27 years from first affecting your kidneys, till you need a transplant.
3) Imagine you discover that your 10 year old child has IgA Nepropahty and that they will need a new kidney sometime in 10-30 years. You can clone them today, ensuring a healthy kidney without any immune suppression drugs,, or wait and hope they get a donated kidney from a stranger and immune suppression drugs.
Damn right you will clone her. Hell, I would clone her even if she was 20 years old. (If she was 30, I'd tell her to raise her own child.).
Yes there should be laws preventing abuse of this technology. But don't tell the parents of a child with a deadly disease that we know how to treat her but we won't do it because of fear of abuse.
Personally, if I wanted to have kids, I'd rather get a matched set of clones. Just for the extra medical capabilities it offers.
For example, if one person gets an Immune disease, you could wipe out their current immune system and give them a new bone marrow implant from the healthy clone.
4) Make essential clothing the few minor tools for use in jobs 1-4.
EVERYONE did those things. Today, each of those jobs is done by less than 1% of our population. Each of those jobs, is for all effective purposes, made obsolete by automation and efficiency gains.
Are we all unemployed? No. Work is dependent not on things that need to be done, but instead on things we want to be done..
As long as mankind has dreams and desires, there will be work. And Humans are greedy S.O.B.s Give each of us a sex-bot and we will demand a second so we can have a three-way.
Mankind won't run out of dreams and desires until we flood the universe - which I don't see as being a problem for the forseeable future. We haven't even left Earth yet.
This was not about getting the information. Neither Apple, nor the public, nor the courts said the FBI could not get the information.
This was always about whether the government could force Apple to get the information for them. That did not happen.
Therefore the FBI clearly lost this issue. They failed to convince Apple to do their bidding. They failed to convince a court to order Apple to do their bidding. They failed to convince the general public that their bidding was righteous, they even failed to convince Congress that their bidding was righteous.
The FBI failed on this issue, all round.
On the entirely separate issue of obtaining the information, they achieved their goal - but NO one except for criminals were trying to stop that from happening.
Apple refused to sabotage their equipment. The courts refused to order them to do so.
They proved they didn't need to sabotage the software. Demonstrating lie to their own words.
Now this idiot thinks he can still win? The more he pushes, the more we will push back. Better for him to leave it up in the air without a legal ruling declaring his desired actions unconstitional.
If he pushes more, we will push back and he will find himself wearing uncomfortable restrictions ordered by the SCOTUS.
You are absolutely right. They should not be punished - but neither should their descendants benefit - they should not get the money in the first place. After all, they didn't earn it., their parents did. If they want to be wealthy, they should have to go out and start their own business - from scratch, not a single penny from mom and dad. 100% death tax. No inheritance, all gifts after hitting the age of 18 are taxed at 100%, including paying for college (earn a scholarship you free loader).
Signed, Adam Smith.
Note I did not sign that, I ascribed it to Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism. I don't believe it - but you are implying you do.
You don't get to pick and choose - you want to be a strict capitalist, then take the good with the bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Not cheapness, but storage.
Have a cheap, easy way to store energy for days without leakage? You just became the next Rockefeller / Carnegie/ Vanderbilt / Gates.
Laptops, phones, electric cars, solar panels companies, and nuclear power companies (they can't transmit the power very far so the plants are uncomfortably close to cities) will beat your door down trying to shove money.
100% accuracy can be misleading. Are they talking 0% false negatives, 0% false positives, or both?
I could easily see a situation where it has 0% false positives, but a high false negative rate.
That is, I could claim that my "Presidential Identification" is 100% right if I said no one I met was the President of the US. No false positives because I never said anyone was President.
Similarly, someone could do it the other way around, claiming everyone was the President and have 100% accuracy because I identified every single President in the sample.
Not being a backpack means:
1) You don't burn your legs.
2) It doesn't have to be light enough to carry.
3) You don't have to design so much for the human form.
-------
I do note they didn't tell us how long the flight lasts. The video shows him flying for only about 75 seconds. I bet that's about the maximum amount of time you can go without re-fueling.
Speed reading is like downloading data but not indexing it. You get the general gist, but it is NOT the same as reading for comprehensive.
Someone that speed reads a text book has far inferior recall - both immediately and years later.
Note this is something that many people do not understand about AI's either. They won't be able to just download something and learn/understand it instantly. Like humans, they will have to spend a lot of processing cycles integrating the information into their memory.
They should make it illegal to fly a drone over someone's property, less than 1,000 ft, without their permission.
This demonstrates a POSSIBLE answer. Right now we don't think the situation is anywhere near bad enough to warrant the major problems caused by the proposed solution.
Far more likely is the complete removal of all coal plants, replaced by green technology. Combine that with a cessation of building fossil fuel burning cars, and you have a major shift.
While not as good as the possible solution from the actual post, this is a far more likely one, and would still surprise most people. The benefits would take a while to appear, but they would be real.
As in, in order to get a real AI, it will need to have this fuzzy logic.
Which by the way will end up making our new Robotic overlords require human slaves to do math for them.
Which we will do incorrectly, causing their entire robotic empire to fall in a matter of hours.
I see no problem in gagging the warrant for a year - or even two.
But if after two years, you:
1) Have not arrested, tried and charged the man,
2) Have not even found evidence of a crime, sufficient to extend the warrant
and
3) Are so lazy and uncaring of legal rights that you think you shouldn't have to go to court and prove the right to extend the gag order.
Then:
A) You are a fool that should be fired
and
B) You are not trying to prevent criminals and enemies of the state from figuring out what you are dong, but instead are trying to prevent the law abiding American Public - including the Courts - to understand how badly you are violating their rights.
--------
All gag orders on warrants should have a time limit - of less than 5 years.
The government should be required to provide a report on the results of all criminal warrants after those 5 years, listing how many resulted in convictions, how many prosecutions, how many were worthless, etc. etc. etc.
Track and graph them - and requiring lawyers with bad records of too many worthless warrants to explain or be fired.
It also lets the courts sue for harassment when we find out the SOB put a gag warrant on his ex-wife's new lover.
Basically it works like this.
Coal itself is relatively cheap, mainly because it is a lot easier to transport - you can do it in trucks, not pipelines.
The EPA has had reasonable restrictions on what any new coal plants can burn (does not affect old plants). They can't emit more than 1100 pounds per megawatt hour . Note, this compares with a 1000 lbs limit for natural gas plants.
But to make a power plant that emits 10% more than natural gas plants emit, means the coal power plant costs so much money to run that it isn't worthwhile (compared to natural gas plants).
If you remove that limitation, then new coal plants could be created, creating new demand for coal. This is the regulation they are complaining about.
Yes, this regulation is clearly a good one, obviously MORE than fair, but if someone was stupid enough to eliminate that rule, someone might make more of a profit selling coal.
Also, regulatory uncertainty is caused by the fact that sane people keep trying to apply this fair rule to EXISTING coal plants, not just the new ones.
Different government agencies use different price per human life saved methodologies. Most agencies, such as the car regulation, pollution, etc. regulate only if the cost is less than $10 million per life saved. The EPA sets it at 7.4 million. Some agencies won't even require safety regulations if the cost exceeds $2 million.
Terrorism based agencies are a radical shift. When terrorism is involved, the idiots are willing to spend up to $180 million to save a single life. (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/07/costbenefit_ana.html)
I propose that we legislate a maximum cost per human life saved at $20 million (adjusted for inflation, annually). This would wipe out most of the stupid expenses by federal anti-terrorism agencies, but still allow them to do their job.
They do understand that neo-nazis, rascists, anti-semitics, bigots, etc are real actual people, not fiction.
Did they think they just existed in the movies? That liberals were just lying when they claimed we needed civil rights?
The fact that you found and interviewed a real slime bag, does not excuse you for sending their views out into the world.
Correction, if Castro was still in power.
As for your opposing world view, I believe it is garbage. Everyone always thinks "their" group was better.
What usually happens is that when group (A) is wrong, group A2 fixes the problem. But group A mostly can't admit they were wrong, so they claim the 'fix' that A2 did is really a problem.
Prime example is the 'entitled' feeling you discuss. It's roots is in the belief that rights are you actual rights, rather than privileges. As in , blacks are entitled to a fair trial, Jews are entitled to go to law school, women are entitled to an equal wage.
But if you disagree with the above entitlements, you get shouted down for being a racist, anti-Semitic misogynist.
So instead you complain about a generic "entitlement" culture of today's youths.
Similar thing happening now with the new sexual liberation. The backlash is about how we are 'oppressing' good honest Christians that just want to live by their sincere beliefs.
If your sincere beliefs are hateful, bigotry, then yes, we are not going to let you live by those beliefs - at least not to the extent that they infringe on other people's actual, real civil rights.
Imagine a world with a life expectancy of 160, rather than 80 years. Just talking about doubling it.
160 years ago, slavery was still legal. Imagine having people that used to own slaves still being able to vote today.
Imagine if Castro, Lenin, Papa Doc, all the escaped Nazi's etc. were still alive.
To mis-quote Joss Whedon - "Death is our gift".
To the brokers that say they did it before. Squeal and testify against the people (and schools) that they did it with for half time off.
You don't have to.
All you need to do is put a clear message that shows up on your screen:
"You have either installed a keyboard, or have been hacked."
That's all you need to do.
1) Given: People will take a random USB stick and plug it into a computer.
2) Conclusion: Only a moron will design an Operating system that automatically runs software on a USB stick. Any sane OS designer should declare all USB sticks to be suspect, and require an explicit confirmation before running any executable on it.
The minimal convenience of having auto-run for USB drives is far over-ridden by the huge security leak.
Design products for the people that will run it, not theoretical angels that will read and obey your instruction manuals - especially when they DO NOT COME WITH INSTRUCTION MANUALS anymore.
I agree that this isn't surprising. I would add that the moderately oppressive societies are a special case of ignorance.
Basically, in the cases where the society has oppressed them a little bit, they have been taught by the culture that it's OK. They think "eh, this isn't so bad, I don't really need privacy, it's OK if the government takes it away, the government hasn't truly abused it's power."
But that only works for a while. Once the government expands the use of censorship and privacy invasions, people realize exactly how bad they are being screwed, and how badly they need privacy.
Where the culture is pro-privacy from the beginning, they realize that just because government isn't abusing something right now doesn't mean they won't in the future, so they have developed a culture that values privacy and makes full use of it.
1) This is a disease, not a genetic issue. Make no sense at all to 'clone' someone to deal with a genetic issue.
2) Note the long term lines I declared. That means the clones get to decide, not anyone else. It's all voluntary, by adults.
3) As I clearly stated, this was to deal with situations where neither clone should die. Yes, there is a small (3% chance of dying from donating a kidney, liver, pancreas, etc.)
Yes, you can bring up evil ideas for some douchebag to do. I fully admit it is possible to abuse cloning technology.
I am not talking about that, I am talking about legitimate uses of cloning that do not have the ethical problems you are bringing up - and claim that the possibility of abuse should not preclude non-abusive use of technology. We don't home DVR (DVD or tape) recording because some other people use it to steal shows. Nor should we outlaw ethical uses of cloning because certain unethical uses also exist.
As per my sig, please respond to the ACTUAL thing I wrote, rather than what some idiot thought I meant.
1) A human can live after donating a kidney, lung, pancreas, bone marrow, or liver.
2) There are a lot of diseases that slowly affect those organs. A prime example is IgA Nepropathy can take 27 years from first affecting your kidneys, till you need a transplant.
3) Imagine you discover that your 10 year old child has IgA Nepropahty and that they will need a new kidney sometime in 10-30 years. You can clone them today, ensuring a healthy kidney without any immune suppression drugs,, or wait and hope they get a donated kidney from a stranger and immune suppression drugs.
Damn right you will clone her. Hell, I would clone her even if she was 20 years old. (If she was 30, I'd tell her to raise her own child.).
Yes there should be laws preventing abuse of this technology. But don't tell the parents of a child with a deadly disease that we know how to treat her but we won't do it because of fear of abuse.
Personally, if I wanted to have kids, I'd rather get a matched set of clones. Just for the extra medical capabilities it offers.
For example, if one person gets an Immune disease, you could wipe out their current immune system and give them a new bone marrow implant from the healthy clone.
If something is not fun to use, then it isn't a toy.
If something isn't fun to use, then it is likely to never go anywhere, no matter how much people think it is important to their personal product/use.
But merely being fun does not mean it is also useful.
To be a game changer, it must be useful, and also fun. Then people will use it. If it isn't fun, someone will find a better way.
people had four specific jobs.
1) Protect the tribe.
2) Physically gather plants.
3) Hunt animals.
4) Make essential clothing the few minor tools for use in jobs 1-4.
EVERYONE did those things. Today, each of those jobs is done by less than 1% of our population. Each of those jobs, is for all effective purposes, made obsolete by automation and efficiency gains.
Are we all unemployed? No. Work is dependent not on things that need to be done, but instead on things we want to be done..
As long as mankind has dreams and desires, there will be work. And Humans are greedy S.O.B.s Give each of us a sex-bot and we will demand a second so we can have a three-way.
Mankind won't run out of dreams and desires until we flood the universe - which I don't see as being a problem for the forseeable future. We haven't even left Earth yet.
This was not about getting the information. Neither Apple, nor the public, nor the courts said the FBI could not get the information.
This was always about whether the government could force Apple to get the information for them. That did not happen.
Therefore the FBI clearly lost this issue. They failed to convince Apple to do their bidding. They failed to convince a court to order Apple to do their bidding. They failed to convince the general public that their bidding was righteous, they even failed to convince Congress that their bidding was righteous.
The FBI failed on this issue, all round.
On the entirely separate issue of obtaining the information, they achieved their goal - but NO one except for criminals were trying to stop that from happening.
Apple refused to sabotage their equipment. The courts refused to order them to do so.
They proved they didn't need to sabotage the software. Demonstrating lie to their own words.
Now this idiot thinks he can still win? The more he pushes, the more we will push back. Better for him to leave it up in the air without a legal ruling declaring his desired actions unconstitional.
If he pushes more, we will push back and he will find himself wearing uncomfortable restrictions ordered by the SCOTUS.
You are absolutely right. They should not be punished - but neither should their descendants benefit - they should not get the money in the first place. After all, they didn't earn it., their parents did. If they want to be wealthy, they should have to go out and start their own business - from scratch, not a single penny from mom and dad. 100% death tax. No inheritance, all gifts after hitting the age of 18 are taxed at 100%, including paying for college (earn a scholarship you free loader).
Signed,
Adam Smith.
Note I did not sign that, I ascribed it to Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism. I don't believe it - but you are implying you do.
You don't get to pick and choose - you want to be a strict capitalist, then take the good with the bad.
No I didn't. That's called a viable loss. I repeat, the owner makes a profit, but not as much as they could if they worked for a corporation.