1) This is a press release that was picked up by a minor news service, then picked up by other news services.
2) The original source is a web sight: https://ehtrust.org/ if you go to the About page, you see that website is headed by someone with a new book out. Guess what the book is about...
3) Yes, the book is about power lines causing cancer. Funny how the same person that has already published a book about something that has been thoroughly discredited is now claiming a study proves her right.
4) The websight mentions no other person except their own 'head', but mentions her several times. It has two addresses listed, one of which is a po box in Wyoming, the other is a home in Wyoming. No office.
5) She is a real doctor, but is famous for this EMF controversy.
In other words, the study is not to be trusted, and the news release is fake news, at least until a real news agency can thoroughly check something rather than just accept the word of someone that already has a reputation for accepting junk science
When it comes down to it, machines are very specialized. If we are going to build something, it usually is worth it to min-max it all the way to do one thing as well as possible.
Worse, computers are really only good at one particular type of thinking, which I like to call 'math pushed to the limit'. We keep figuring out new ways to push math to do more, but when it comes down to it, computer programming lacks the massive non-math based methods that humans use. Compared to computers, humans can do math, but only basic stuff. But compared to humans, computers can't do ANYTHING that they can't first turn into math.
So far we haven't figured out a way to convert the task of picking strawberries into math, and we have not yet figured out all the many minimum sensation feedback we use to properly pick strawberries (sight and touch) .
Either you make a lot (relative), and you get to brag.
Or you are getting underpaid and you need to know that when you negotiate your next salary.
The business owner doesn't want you to tell your salary, but remember they already KNOW all the salaries. They have all the knowledge and are trying to keep you ignorant and underpaid.
Robot baby sitters get paid MORE than heavy equiptment manager. It requires higher skill.
The basic mistake you are making is the "Lump of Labor Fallacy". There is no set amount of work to do, there is UNLIMITED work to do. Work is not created, it is released. We don't work to fulfill needs, we work to fulfill wants. 5000 years ago most of our workers were in agriculture. The tech that made these farmers redundant freed them up to do other jobs that were not as important as feeding ourselves. Those new jobs were 'luxury' jobs that we did without before. Now our society has become dependent on those jobs and they have been re-classified as must haves, not luxuries. New jobs that will be considered more 'nice to have' rather than 'must have' will be discovered.
Note that word, discovered, not created. The jobs will fill old needs that went unmet, not create new needs.
Yes, new tech displaces workers. It requires new skills, and worse, we don't know how many people we will need with each new skill, so there is the chance you will train for a job and then not get a job doing it.
But there is ALWAYS new work to do, and generally better paying work.
This study found the truth because it looked at actual behavior instead of proxies for negative behavior.
The problem with looking at proxies (besides their being no need to measure them when you can measure the real stuff) is that Video games are proxies for real life.
So when you try to see if a proxy for violence results in the presence of proxies for violent behavior, surprise surprise. Fake sugar tastes sweet but does not have calories. That is why you use sugar substitutes. Same thing for video games. You use fake violence instead of real violence.
That is quite honestly ridiculous. Most video games are not based on real world physics in part because real world physics is boring. Who wants to play a game where you have to carry all the bullets you fire? Nobody wants to reload that often.
Things he could have been doing that resulted in a bomb without being a bomb maker:
1) Cooking with a pressure cooker. See Instant Pot 2) Making home made fireworks 3) Anything involving certain metals (sodium) and water. 4)sugar and a whole bunch of other chemicals.
Frankly, there are a LOT of explosive chemical reactions.
Electric cars only do the last two. And if they are self driving, they will reduce congestion (most congestion is caused by human errors). Gasoline cars SHOULD pay more than electric cars.
I have attended sexual harassment classes. They almost always make things worse.
The typical problem is described by the words "sexualized their male managers".
It indicates a huge abuse of the english language, and makes sexual harassment MORE likely, not less. A literal explanation of the meaning is "make sexual". That's simply not true - the men are not taking asexual creatures and making them more sexual.
Instead, the author is trying to say that the men have no respect for the women and are sexually harassing them. But instead of taking the time to say it clearly, they take a shortcut. But the short cut sounds STUPID to the target market. The evil men do not think their behavior is inappropriate and when you use this short cut, they do not understand what you are saying.
It's the liberal equivalent of saying "I have a black friend". It makes the speaker look stupid rather than convincing people of the truth.
First, real estate is very expensive and renting is very cheap (relative to purchase price). It is impossible to put 50% down, buy a place and be cash flow positive there, while most of the country you can easily put 5% down and be cash flow positive. Rent prices do not reflect current real estate appraisals. Renting real estate out on a yearly basis is only profitable if you take into account the expected appreciation.
But if you go short term, aka AirBnB, then you turn cash flow positive.
Real world example: Place costs 600k, rents for monthly 2k. 24k cash will not cover the mortgage, let alone the taxes and Condo fees/HOA.
But if you rent it for 200/night, that becomes 6k a month, assume you only make 5k (1/6 days not rented), or 60k a year WILL cover the mortgage, taxes, and maintenance/HOA fees.
And, because it is NYC, renting out 5/6 days is not that hard to do.
Given that situation, you have to be a fool not to AirBnb.
But in other places, that won't work. First, the monthly rental prices for a 600k house outside of NYC is more like 4k a month. Second, you can't get the 200/night 5 days out of 6 for most other cities. Even getting 3/6 is a significant reduction in profit and takes just as much work
The safety of a single, reliable rentor, avoiding the possible legal issues of the AirBnB , all means most landlords would rather rent on a yearly basis not weekly
Work is not limited by what we need, it's limited by a combination of how badly we want something and how annoying it is to do.
200 years ago we did not need someone to tell us what was the best wine to go with our dinner. We had wine, we had dinner, and we had people that thought too much about it. But there were not enough people willing to pay for it to be a job.
Now, we have wine sommeliers. And they make a nice buck.
Humans are greedy. Give us all sex-bots and we will demand two for a threesome. Our wants are unlimited.
The question is not whether people are attacking driverless cars. Of course they are. Because people attack normal, manual cars. Several movies have scenes where people go down the street and hit every single car parked on the street.
The right question is: "Is the average driverless car attacked more often then the average car?"
Obama was elected in 2009, one year before the problem became known internally, not when the problem was created.
It was created by George Bush, whose moron employees failed to create the proper software.
So, you want to blame the guy at the top of the food chain, fine. But make sure you blame the shmuck that created the problem, rather than just the guy that failed to fix it. Especially as you have no evidence about what Obama did or did not know or do.
There is no set number of jobs. I am not employee # 1,345,219,223 out of 7,000,000,000
Jobs do things. The number of jobs available depends on the number of things we WANT to do. Note the word want, not need. We don't need a wine sommelier to tell us which wine is good. That's why that job did not exist 200 years ago. 200 years ago, we wanted to know what the best wine for the meal was, but we had more important things to do - like keeping everyone fed and clothed.
As tech eliminate old jobs, it frees up people to do other things we want done.
The key thing is that humans are very greedy. We will never run out of things we want. Give everyone a sex robot and hear the people say they want a threesome, which needs two robots.
But the new tech does cause problems - it devalues existing training. It takes a while to figure out which new wants can now be filled.
But that takes time and effort to fix. In other words, the next new jo is a) figuring out the next need and b) training people to do it.
It would be a speaker that automatically plays Donald Trump's voice into the smart speaker, with the appropriate command word. Have him ask for stupid things, repeatedly.
Fill the spies ears with enough false information and they should lose money.
You have made the same mistake that all the other doomsday soothsayers.
Computers do not have brains and are not intelligent. They have logic processors and are fast. There is a huge difference.
Logic processors lists the fastest route and also the one that burns less gas. Brains tell you to whether to try for the fastest route or the route with less gas.
Computers are really really good at answering math related questions (and a lot of questions are math related). They really really suck at deciding which question to ask.
They give a list of 10+ requirements that you are already supposed to know.
The problem is caused by a large number of applicants. They get 1000 applicants and need some way to winnow it down. So they give ridiculous exact requirements, trying to get someone with exactly what they need. But that person already has a job - probably paying more than what they offer - or is such a jerk no one would hire them.
It's the equivalent of saying "I want to hire a junior mechanic that has 5 years of working on a 2012 Porsche, a 2012 BMW, and a 2012 Jaguar."
The only people that meet the requirements either already have jobs or are shmucks.
Half the requirements and TRAIN THE PEOPLE to do the job. Any job that takes a smart person more than a week to learn how to do 90% of the work should be split into two jobs.
1) I didn't whine, I stated a fact - one you agree with (that short men are fine asking tall women out and that women are NOT OK with it.) You are the only person here whining.
2) What would you think if someone said "jews are money grubbing bastards?" But you are fine attacking nerds as immature perverts.
3) Stop being upset when people call you on your personal flaws. It's OK for women to complain about men being shallow pigs only interested in sex with thin women. It's also OK for men to complain about women being shallow pigs only interested in relationships with tall men.
Slashdot Mirror
If you trace it back, you find that:
1) This is a press release that was picked up by a minor news service, then picked up by other news services.
2) The original source is a web sight: https://ehtrust.org/ if you go to the About page, you see that website is headed by someone with a new book out. Guess what the book is about...
3) Yes, the book is about power lines causing cancer. Funny how the same person that has already published a book about something that has been thoroughly discredited is now claiming a study proves her right.
4) The websight mentions no other person except their own 'head', but mentions her several times. It has two addresses listed, one of which is a po box in Wyoming, the other is a home in Wyoming. No office.
5) She is a real doctor, but is famous for this EMF controversy.
In other words, the study is not to be trusted, and the news release is fake news, at least until a real news agency can thoroughly check something rather than just accept the word of someone that already has a reputation for accepting junk science
When it comes down to it, machines are very specialized. If we are going to build something, it usually is worth it to min-max it all the way to do one thing as well as possible.
Worse, computers are really only good at one particular type of thinking, which I like to call 'math pushed to the limit'. We keep figuring out new ways to push math to do more, but when it comes down to it, computer programming lacks the massive non-math based methods that humans use. Compared to computers, humans can do math, but only basic stuff. But compared to humans, computers can't do ANYTHING that they can't first turn into math.
So far we haven't figured out a way to convert the task of picking strawberries into math, and we have not yet figured out all the many minimum sensation feedback we use to properly pick strawberries (sight and touch) .
Either you make a lot (relative), and you get to brag.
Or you are getting underpaid and you need to know that when you negotiate your next salary.
The business owner doesn't want you to tell your salary, but remember they already KNOW all the salaries. They have all the knowledge and are trying to keep you ignorant and underpaid.
Robot baby sitters get paid MORE than heavy equiptment manager. It requires higher skill.
The basic mistake you are making is the "Lump of Labor Fallacy". There is no set amount of work to do, there is UNLIMITED work to do. Work is not created, it is released. We don't work to fulfill needs, we work to fulfill wants. 5000 years ago most of our workers were in agriculture. The tech that made these farmers redundant freed them up to do other jobs that were not as important as feeding ourselves. Those new jobs were 'luxury' jobs that we did without before. Now our society has become dependent on those jobs and they have been re-classified as must haves, not luxuries. New jobs that will be considered more 'nice to have' rather than 'must have' will be discovered.
Note that word, discovered, not created. The jobs will fill old needs that went unmet, not create new needs.
Yes, new tech displaces workers. It requires new skills, and worse, we don't know how many people we will need with each new skill, so there is the chance you will train for a job and then not get a job doing it.
But there is ALWAYS new work to do, and generally better paying work.
This study found the truth because it looked at actual behavior instead of proxies for negative behavior.
The problem with looking at proxies (besides their being no need to measure them when you can measure the real stuff) is that Video games are proxies for real life.
So when you try to see if a proxy for violence results in the presence of proxies for violent behavior, surprise surprise. Fake sugar tastes sweet but does not have calories. That is why you use sugar substitutes. Same thing for video games. You use fake violence instead of real violence.
That is quite honestly ridiculous. Most video games are not based on real world physics in part because real world physics is boring. Who wants to play a game where you have to carry all the bullets you fire? Nobody wants to reload that often.
Things he could have been doing that resulted in a bomb without being a bomb maker:
1) Cooking with a pressure cooker. See Instant Pot
2) Making home made fireworks
3) Anything involving certain metals (sodium) and water.
4)sugar and a whole bunch of other chemicals.
Frankly, there are a LOT of explosive chemical reactions.
Lighting will strike the tall metal structure. It will do so during the next rainstorm.
Yeah, but the plastic they dump is mostly from trash that was shipped to them to recycle.
Not really.Gasoline cars contribute three things:
1) Pollution
2) road deterioration
3) congestion
Electric cars only do the last two. And if they are self driving, they will reduce congestion (most congestion is caused by human errors). Gasoline cars SHOULD pay more than electric cars.
The election occur in the US, so guess what CUPCAKE, the US law does apply to US elections.
It is a crime to do publicly advertise or contribute to a candidate without obeying the US election laws.
And it's the same everywhere.
It helped Russians violate US election law. It helps landlords illegally advertise based on race, religion, age, and gender.
How many laws does it have to break before we admit it is a criminal enterprise?
I have attended sexual harassment classes. They almost always make things worse.
The typical problem is described by the words "sexualized their male managers".
It indicates a huge abuse of the english language, and makes sexual harassment MORE likely, not less. A literal explanation of the meaning is "make sexual". That's simply not true - the men are not taking asexual creatures and making them more sexual.
Instead, the author is trying to say that the men have no respect for the women and are sexually harassing them. But instead of taking the time to say it clearly, they take a shortcut. But the short cut sounds STUPID to the target market. The evil men do not think their behavior is inappropriate and when you use this short cut, they do not understand what you are saying.
It's the liberal equivalent of saying "I have a black friend". It makes the speaker look stupid rather than convincing people of the truth.
First, real estate is very expensive and renting is very cheap (relative to purchase price). It is impossible to put 50% down, buy a place and be cash flow positive there, while most of the country you can easily put 5% down and be cash flow positive. Rent prices do not reflect current real estate appraisals. Renting real estate out on a yearly basis is only profitable if you take into account the expected appreciation.
But if you go short term, aka AirBnB, then you turn cash flow positive.
Real world example: Place costs 600k, rents for monthly 2k. 24k cash will not cover the mortgage, let alone the taxes and Condo fees/HOA.
But if you rent it for 200/night, that becomes 6k a month, assume you only make 5k (1/6 days not rented), or 60k a year WILL cover the mortgage, taxes, and maintenance/HOA fees.
And, because it is NYC, renting out 5/6 days is not that hard to do.
Given that situation, you have to be a fool not to AirBnb.
But in other places, that won't work. First, the monthly rental prices for a 600k house outside of NYC is more like 4k a month. Second, you can't get the 200/night 5 days out of 6 for most other cities. Even getting 3/6 is a significant reduction in profit and takes just as much work
The safety of a single, reliable rentor, avoiding the possible legal issues of the AirBnB , all means most landlords would rather rent on a yearly basis not weekly
The answer to your question is "All of it".
Work is not limited by what we need, it's limited by a combination of how badly we want something and how annoying it is to do.
200 years ago we did not need someone to tell us what was the best wine to go with our dinner. We had wine, we had dinner, and we had people that thought too much about it. But there were not enough people willing to pay for it to be a job.
Now, we have wine sommeliers. And they make a nice buck.
Humans are greedy. Give us all sex-bots and we will demand two for a threesome. Our wants are unlimited.
The question is not whether people are attacking driverless cars.
Of course they are. Because people attack normal, manual cars. Several movies have scenes where people go down the street and hit every single car parked on the street.
The right question is: "Is the average driverless car attacked more often then the average car?"
The article does not say they aren't tracking us anymore, they instead say the cookies are obsolete.
But it failed to mention what is replacing cookies.
That's far more important than the death of cookies.
When you buy a gun and kill someone, no one says "OH MY GOD, US DOLLARS KILLED HIM."
That is not "Direct" harm. That is not even secondary harm. That is very, very, very indirect harm. Tertiary at best.
The shooter and the gun 'directly' caused the harm. The secondary cause might be the drug sales or whatever made you mad enough to kill him.
The stuff you used to buy the weapon? That's at best tertiary. Not a direct cause.
We need to update our phone systems to allow a traceroute like command, rather than just looking at the claimed sender phone number.
Knowing that a call that supposedly came from Chicago first entered the phone system in Alabama would be very helpful.
Obama was elected in 2009, one year before the problem became known internally, not when the problem was created.
It was created by George Bush, whose moron employees failed to create the proper software.
So, you want to blame the guy at the top of the food chain, fine. But make sure you blame the shmuck that created the problem, rather than just the guy that failed to fix it. Especially as you have no evidence about what Obama did or did not know or do.
It's an obvious fact.
There is no set number of jobs. I am not employee # 1,345,219,223 out of 7,000,000,000
Jobs do things. The number of jobs available depends on the number of things we WANT to do. Note the word want, not need. We don't need a wine sommelier to tell us which wine is good. That's why that job did not exist 200 years ago. 200 years ago, we wanted to know what the best wine for the meal was, but we had more important things to do - like keeping everyone fed and clothed.
As tech eliminate old jobs, it frees up people to do other things we want done.
The key thing is that humans are very greedy. We will never run out of things we want. Give everyone a sex robot and hear the people say they want a threesome, which needs two robots.
But the new tech does cause problems - it devalues existing training. It takes a while to figure out which new wants can now be filled.
But that takes time and effort to fix. In other words, the next new jo is a) figuring out the next need and b) training people to do it.
It would be a speaker that automatically plays Donald Trump's voice into the smart speaker, with the appropriate command word. Have him ask for stupid things, repeatedly.
Fill the spies ears with enough false information and they should lose money.
You have made the same mistake that all the other doomsday soothsayers.
Computers do not have brains and are not intelligent. They have logic processors and are fast. There is a huge difference.
Logic processors lists the fastest route and also the one that burns less gas. Brains tell you to whether to try for the fastest route or the route with less gas.
Computers are really really good at answering math related questions (and a lot of questions are math related). They really really suck at deciding which question to ask.
They give a list of 10+ requirements that you are already supposed to know.
The problem is caused by a large number of applicants. They get 1000 applicants and need some way to winnow it down. So they give ridiculous exact requirements, trying to get someone with exactly what they need. But that person already has a job - probably paying more than what they offer - or is such a jerk no one would hire them.
It's the equivalent of saying "I want to hire a junior mechanic that has 5 years of working on a 2012 Porsche, a 2012 BMW, and a 2012 Jaguar."
The only people that meet the requirements either already have jobs or are shmucks.
Half the requirements and TRAIN THE PEOPLE to do the job. Any job that takes a smart person more than a week to learn how to do 90% of the work should be split into two jobs.
1) I didn't whine, I stated a fact - one you agree with (that short men are fine asking tall women out and that women are NOT OK with it.) You are the only person here whining.
2) What would you think if someone said "jews are money grubbing bastards?" But you are fine attacking nerds as immature perverts.
3) Stop being upset when people call you on your personal flaws. It's OK for women to complain about men being shallow pigs only interested in sex with thin women. It's also OK for men to complain about women being shallow pigs only interested in relationships with tall men.