If Man caused the extinction, then it's[sic] a moral duty to bring them back
That makes no sense. We have no moral obligation to nature, or to extinct species. "Nature" doesn't care if those species are around or not. Nature is not suffering without them, and neither are those creatures.
If someone wants to bring them back, we should make sure they won't cause any problems. And if they won't cause any problems, then go ahead. It would be a great zoo!
I don't think that's true (ie animals are also capable of delayed gratification), but I grant your point. Then we might say that the problem is one of information: people don't realize why they should delay gratification here.
The other main cause of conservatism is cowardice, the understanding that the past was bad, the present sucks too, but that on balance, ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER will more likely make things worse, rather than better.
Of course not. Conservatives happily favor any change downward in tax rates. Provably so. Doesn't even matter if it's rational.
It's important to note that the need for energy in the USA is -- for the first time since the invention of electricity -- no longer growing.
When energy grows cheap enough, it becomes economical to turn lead into gold.There is no problem with *using* energy, the problem is when you damage the environment in the process.
Cheap, clean energy is a *very* good thing.
Anything that uses A* search, for example (like mapping, which even if people don't use maps directly, shipping services bringing goods to their country do).
Getting more esoteric, genetic algorithms have been used to find new drugs, and AI algorithms have been used in spectroscopy since the 70s.
That's basically right. People said, "Even an actor is better than the clowns currently in Sacramento." Schwarzenegger was better than governor Gray Davis who preceded him.
I don't think he's a flat-earther. He was able to raise a ton of money from people who thought he was a flat-earther, so whether he is or not, he's definitely good at getting money from people.
The name "self driving car" itself is hype, because no car can drive itself. The hype that it will be here by this year, or by 2020 or 2025is hype. Calling "lane assist" self driving is *definitely* hype.
That sort of excuse making has become common (maybe because apologizing doesn't work anymore). Tell three lies and two excuses and hope 12 percent of the population will believe each one, then you're still ok. I would say it's ridiculous but it's remarkably effective.
The Facebook privacy policy says they will access your address book, but it doesn't say they will access your call data. It seems like they are going beyond what they are saying they will do. That's kind of weird, because you expect their lawyers to be on top of this kind of stuff.
It's really hard for me to feel outrage about this......something that's been a problem for years, and now they went a little farther so you are worried?
How on earth do you find a C# dev that doesn't use var ever?
Maybe you should have just ended the interview after they said they use C#. That's just as arbitrary but more likely to yield good results.
Slashdot Mirror
If Man caused the extinction, then it's[sic] a moral duty to bring them back
That makes no sense. We have no moral obligation to nature, or to extinct species. "Nature" doesn't care if those species are around or not. Nature is not suffering without them, and neither are those creatures.
If someone wants to bring them back, we should make sure they won't cause any problems. And if they won't cause any problems, then go ahead. It would be a great zoo!
The judge rules based on the law.In California, the law says that silly things need to be labelled as carcinogenic.
I don't think that's true (ie animals are also capable of delayed gratification), but I grant your point. Then we might say that the problem is one of information: people don't realize why they should delay gratification here.
but are we all switching from Facebook to Instagram following the Cambridge Analytica scandal?
I hope so, just because of the sheer stupid irony of it. Instagram is owned by Facebook.
Mostly people just want to feel good?
I agree with you, but would suggest that most people vote based on the advertising they see. That's why you see political posters around town.
The other main cause of conservatism is cowardice, the understanding that the past was bad, the present sucks too, but that on balance, ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER will more likely make things worse, rather than better.
Of course not. Conservatives happily favor any change downward in tax rates. Provably so. Doesn't even matter if it's rational.
I guarantee that if you shut down Facebook, the thing that replaces it will be much, much worse.
They take iodide and they paint it with a rattle can of silver paint.
See? That would be cheaper! I don't know why scientists never listen to me, I even built my own rocket.
Isn't it kind of expensive to use up all that silver? Or does it not really use very much silver? (Or is that just a name?)
Most? You want to talk about what benefited people most?? Surely of all things it's the ability to make fire.
Good plan, I support your promotion to head of Uber's driving department.
It's important to note that the need for energy in the USA is -- for the first time since the invention of electricity -- no longer growing.
When energy grows cheap enough, it becomes economical to turn lead into gold.There is no problem with *using* energy, the problem is when you damage the environment in the process.
Cheap, clean energy is a *very* good thing.
Anything that uses A* search, for example (like mapping, which even if people don't use maps directly, shipping services bringing goods to their country do).
Getting more esoteric, genetic algorithms have been used to find new drugs, and AI algorithms have been used in spectroscopy since the 70s.
It is correct and accurate to say that most countries have *already* benefited from AI (even if it's not strong AI).
That's basically right. People said, "Even an actor is better than the clowns currently in Sacramento." Schwarzenegger was better than governor Gray Davis who preceded him.
I don't think he's a flat-earther. He was able to raise a ton of money from people who thought he was a flat-earther, so whether he is or not, he's definitely good at getting money from people.
The name "self driving car" itself is hype, because no car can drive itself. The hype that it will be here by this year, or by 2020 or 2025is hype. Calling "lane assist" self driving is *definitely* hype.
That sort of excuse making has become common (maybe because apologizing doesn't work anymore). Tell three lies and two excuses and hope 12 percent of the population will believe each one, then you're still ok. I would say it's ridiculous but it's remarkably effective.
The Facebook privacy policy says they will access your address book, but it doesn't say they will access your call data. It seems like they are going beyond what they are saying they will do. That's kind of weird, because you expect their lawyers to be on top of this kind of stuff.
Not that anyone reads the privacy policy.
It's really hard for me to feel outrage about this......something that's been a problem for years, and now they went a little farther so you are worried?
Hype means the capabilities are exaggerated.
Instagram managed to do it. Although they eventually got bought by Facebook, they are proof that people are willing to move to another platform.
We should get to it and replace email along the way while we're at it. That thing is from the steam age of computing and it shows at all corners.
If it's based on JSON, it's not going to be better.
Their marketing prowess is displayed by the fact that it looks like humbug.org. Who wants to go there?
How on earth do you find a C# dev that doesn't use var ever?
Maybe you should have just ended the interview after they said they use C#. That's just as arbitrary but more likely to yield good results.