Expecting a new party to stand a chance in the presidential elections is like expecting to become CEO on your first day at a company. Start with local and state elections. Get a few people in and show that they're competent. Then stand for congress. Once you've got a few people in congress, use their voting records and speeches when campaigning for president. The only time I know of political parties becoming established and successful more quickly than this have been in new democracies or when they were formed by a group of people leaving an established party.
And they're charging a £10/month line rental to the customer for just having current going to your phone socket, on top of what BT Wholesale charges the ISP. You need to pay this to use any ADSL service unless you're on one of the few exchanges with local loop unbundling. In areas with cable, this makes ADSL completely uncompetitive.
The data for phone calls is more scarce on at least some mobile protocols because it is isochronous, whereas data sold as data just goes into the unused slots. That said, the mobile companies really ought to offer a SIPPOTS gateway and separate out the charge for data from the charge for termination. If they were really clever, they'd make sure that the SIP stuff worked from any network connection, so they could still charge you for calls when you make them over WiFi.
Or as much sense as carriage manufacturers forcing every automobile to be preceded by a man walking and waving a flag. Oh, wait, that one actually happened...
I've used that in an interview. It was true, although an equally honest answer would have been 'that project was very tedious and I don't want to talk about it.'
I suspect that there isn't a great deal of overlap between people who applying for the kind of jobs where they'd ask you that kind of thing and people who have a lot of choice in where they work.
The point of the law isn't to stop people from being bigots. People have the right to be as bigoted as they want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. The point of these laws is to prevent bigots in a position of power from adversely affecting the lives of others.
These laws are most important when bigots outnumber non-bigots in such positions. When the converse is true, they become self defeating. If most businesses are run by non-bigots then they will be hiring the top people while the ones run by bigots will be stuck with the best from the subset that their bigotry allowed them to hire[1] and so they'd fail. With these laws, bigots get to keep operating successful companies and complain that the evil government stops them from being as successful as they could be if they didn't have to hire competent people.
[1] For fear of invoking Godwin, one of the best examples of this is Nazi Germany. If they hadn't kicked out all of the Jewish physicists then the Second World War would probably have ended quite differently...
Corruption offsets regulation. There are lots of rules in China, and a well established scale of bribes you need to pay depending on which ones you want to ignore.
My mobile phone is two years old and has an OLED display. I can only assume that this means that they were in production two years ago, and probably still are since things like the Galaxy Nexus also have them.
Pocket size. I don't think this display is flexible enough, but there was a company a few years ago that put out a concept eBook reader in a scroll form factor. Rolled up, the screen was completely protected and it would fit in a pocket. Unrolled, it gave a reasonably large screen. I'd love to have a device like that.
It's difficult to boycott Gawker. It's like boycotting punching yourself in the face. Sure, you can tell everyone loudly you're not going to do it, but on the other hand no one is likely to believe that it's a matter of principle.
They may hit the child, but they'd place trying not to higher than trying not to hit the cat. If the car can't distinguish between car and cat, it wouldn't swerve and so it would plough straight into the child and at the inquest it would be shown that it didn't even attempt not to. This would be a major PR problem for the manufacturer.
Uh, what? You're driving along a street at 30 miles per hour. Child runs onto the road 5-10m in front of you. If you hit the brakes instantly, you're still going to hit the child. So you swerve instead. Only there's a cat running onto the road on the other side. You can't possibly avoid hitting one or the other.
Read my post again. If a car in front hits something then it will stop faster than if it brakes. It doesn't matter if the car behind starts braking instantly, it will still hit front car. The car behind will still hit it, and so on. This is how you get a pile-up.
I don't think that's the case in most of the world, although there are exemptions in some places. Irrespective of how automated the car is, the human in the drivers seat is legally responsible for it and counts as the driver, even if all the 'driving' that they're doing is entering the destination coordinates.
Why would it need to tell the difference between a human and a non-human?
There are a few situations where this could be important. Consider a cat runs into the road on the right and a child runs into the road from the other side to get the cat out of the road. A human would typically prioritise not hitting the child. If the AI doesn't, and hits the child in preference to the cat then it's not going to look very good. If there's only one obstacle, you want to avoid it. If there are two, then you want to avoid the most valuable ones, and generally we consider humans to be more valuable than anything else you're likely to collide with.
They can also drive safely millimetres (like inches but smaller) apart from each other, massively increasing the capacity of the existing road network.
Stopping distance doesn't change that much. The reaction time becomes smaller, but the braking time stays the same. It's fine for normal use, but when the car in front collides with an oncoming vehicle or something falling off bridge and comes to an abrupt stop then your driverless car still needs almost as long as a human-operated car to come to a safe stop without hitting the vehicle in front.
In theory: they could buy even more foodstuff with their Fairtrade income than they could grow.
The problem is that 'they' is not the same people. The people making the money from the Fairtrade crops are not the same people who are starving. They are farm owners. People who used to buy food from their local farms are not able to because the local farm no longer produces things for sale locally and getting food from further away is too expensive.
How much m per kg meat do you need and how much m per kg vegetables do you need.
Then how much kgs of meat/vegetables do you need to eat to get the required food into your system,...
Unless the animal that you are eating is 100% efficient and doesn't expend any energy staying alive, it will need to eat more plant matter to provide you with the meat to eat than you would need to eat for the same nutrition. You shouldn't need a citation for that, because ten seconds of thinking will show that it's obvious.
The only time that it is more efficient to use animals for food is when you have land that can't support any food crops that humans can eat. There are lots of places in the world where this is true.
It's not about capacity, it's about latency. Look at what happened when China decided to reduce exports of rare earth metals. The rest of the world has massive stocks of these in the ground, but it will take about 2 years to reopen the mines and ramp up production to meet the demand. With food, the time is typically about a year, maybe six months. The point of farm subsidies is to ensure that your population won't starve if you are suddenly unable to import food.
I think the grandparent's point is that rapid population growth is a phase that most countries go through. Initially you don't have enough resources to sustain it and so high birth rates don't translate to population growth because most of the children die before reaching maturity. Then technology (translated to availability of food and medical knowledge) improve and a lot of the children that would have died survive. Then you get the population boom. Then you get better education and the availability of birth control and the growth drops away and even becomes negative. A lot of Africa is stuck in stage 2 because we're shovelling food and medical aid at them, but not education.
Money is just an abstraction for wealth. A lot of African nations are very rich in raw materials, including things like diamonds and uranium that other countries want. The problem is that when this is exported there is little reinvestment in local infrastructure. Most of the money goes to corrupt governments or foreign corporations. Imagine how wealthy the USA would be 10 years from now if you destroyed all of the roads, water and power distribution, and telephone / Internet infrastructure.
Not just that. Initiatives like Fairtrade have made a lot of farmers shift from growing food for local consumption to growing things like roses and coffee for export. Guaranteeing a price above the market value of these crops made them a lot more lucrative.
Want to help fix that? Stop buying Fairtrade products from Africa. Growing export crops (often ones that require a lot of water) takes farmland away from growing food for local consumption, which pushes the price up beyond the reach of the poorest people. I suppose this helps to address the population problem, but not in a particularly humane way.
Slashdot Mirror
Expecting a new party to stand a chance in the presidential elections is like expecting to become CEO on your first day at a company. Start with local and state elections. Get a few people in and show that they're competent. Then stand for congress. Once you've got a few people in congress, use their voting records and speeches when campaigning for president. The only time I know of political parties becoming established and successful more quickly than this have been in new democracies or when they were formed by a group of people leaving an established party.
And they're charging a £10/month line rental to the customer for just having current going to your phone socket, on top of what BT Wholesale charges the ISP. You need to pay this to use any ADSL service unless you're on one of the few exchanges with local loop unbundling. In areas with cable, this makes ADSL completely uncompetitive.
The data for phone calls is more scarce on at least some mobile protocols because it is isochronous, whereas data sold as data just goes into the unused slots. That said, the mobile companies really ought to offer a SIPPOTS gateway and separate out the charge for data from the charge for termination. If they were really clever, they'd make sure that the SIP stuff worked from any network connection, so they could still charge you for calls when you make them over WiFi.
Or as much sense as carriage manufacturers forcing every automobile to be preceded by a man walking and waving a flag. Oh, wait, that one actually happened...
I've used that in an interview. It was true, although an equally honest answer would have been 'that project was very tedious and I don't want to talk about it.'
I suspect that there isn't a great deal of overlap between people who applying for the kind of jobs where they'd ask you that kind of thing and people who have a lot of choice in where they work.
The point of the law isn't to stop people from being bigots. People have the right to be as bigoted as they want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. The point of these laws is to prevent bigots in a position of power from adversely affecting the lives of others.
These laws are most important when bigots outnumber non-bigots in such positions. When the converse is true, they become self defeating. If most businesses are run by non-bigots then they will be hiring the top people while the ones run by bigots will be stuck with the best from the subset that their bigotry allowed them to hire[1] and so they'd fail. With these laws, bigots get to keep operating successful companies and complain that the evil government stops them from being as successful as they could be if they didn't have to hire competent people.
[1] For fear of invoking Godwin, one of the best examples of this is Nazi Germany. If they hadn't kicked out all of the Jewish physicists then the Second World War would probably have ended quite differently...
Corruption offsets regulation. There are lots of rules in China, and a well established scale of bribes you need to pay depending on which ones you want to ignore.
My mobile phone is two years old and has an OLED display. I can only assume that this means that they were in production two years ago, and probably still are since things like the Galaxy Nexus also have them.
Pocket size. I don't think this display is flexible enough, but there was a company a few years ago that put out a concept eBook reader in a scroll form factor. Rolled up, the screen was completely protected and it would fit in a pocket. Unrolled, it gave a reasonably large screen. I'd love to have a device like that.
It's difficult to boycott Gawker. It's like boycotting punching yourself in the face. Sure, you can tell everyone loudly you're not going to do it, but on the other hand no one is likely to believe that it's a matter of principle.
They may hit the child, but they'd place trying not to higher than trying not to hit the cat. If the car can't distinguish between car and cat, it wouldn't swerve and so it would plough straight into the child and at the inquest it would be shown that it didn't even attempt not to. This would be a major PR problem for the manufacturer.
Uh, what? You're driving along a street at 30 miles per hour. Child runs onto the road 5-10m in front of you. If you hit the brakes instantly, you're still going to hit the child. So you swerve instead. Only there's a cat running onto the road on the other side. You can't possibly avoid hitting one or the other.
Read my post again. If a car in front hits something then it will stop faster than if it brakes. It doesn't matter if the car behind starts braking instantly, it will still hit front car. The car behind will still hit it, and so on. This is how you get a pile-up.
I don't think that's the case in most of the world, although there are exemptions in some places. Irrespective of how automated the car is, the human in the drivers seat is legally responsible for it and counts as the driver, even if all the 'driving' that they're doing is entering the destination coordinates.
Why would it need to tell the difference between a human and a non-human?
There are a few situations where this could be important. Consider a cat runs into the road on the right and a child runs into the road from the other side to get the cat out of the road. A human would typically prioritise not hitting the child. If the AI doesn't, and hits the child in preference to the cat then it's not going to look very good. If there's only one obstacle, you want to avoid it. If there are two, then you want to avoid the most valuable ones, and generally we consider humans to be more valuable than anything else you're likely to collide with.
And "DestroyAllCyclists" too
I believe this is enabled by default if you set the locale to en_US.
They can also drive safely millimetres (like inches but smaller) apart from each other, massively increasing the capacity of the existing road network.
Stopping distance doesn't change that much. The reaction time becomes smaller, but the braking time stays the same. It's fine for normal use, but when the car in front collides with an oncoming vehicle or something falling off bridge and comes to an abrupt stop then your driverless car still needs almost as long as a human-operated car to come to a safe stop without hitting the vehicle in front.
In theory: they could buy even more foodstuff with their Fairtrade income than they could grow.
The problem is that 'they' is not the same people. The people making the money from the Fairtrade crops are not the same people who are starving. They are farm owners. People who used to buy food from their local farms are not able to because the local farm no longer produces things for sale locally and getting food from further away is too expensive.
How much m per kg meat do you need and how much m per kg vegetables do you need. Then how much kgs of meat/vegetables do you need to eat to get the required food into your system,...
Unless the animal that you are eating is 100% efficient and doesn't expend any energy staying alive, it will need to eat more plant matter to provide you with the meat to eat than you would need to eat for the same nutrition. You shouldn't need a citation for that, because ten seconds of thinking will show that it's obvious.
The only time that it is more efficient to use animals for food is when you have land that can't support any food crops that humans can eat. There are lots of places in the world where this is true.
It's not about capacity, it's about latency. Look at what happened when China decided to reduce exports of rare earth metals. The rest of the world has massive stocks of these in the ground, but it will take about 2 years to reopen the mines and ramp up production to meet the demand. With food, the time is typically about a year, maybe six months. The point of farm subsidies is to ensure that your population won't starve if you are suddenly unable to import food.
I think the grandparent's point is that rapid population growth is a phase that most countries go through. Initially you don't have enough resources to sustain it and so high birth rates don't translate to population growth because most of the children die before reaching maturity. Then technology (translated to availability of food and medical knowledge) improve and a lot of the children that would have died survive. Then you get the population boom. Then you get better education and the availability of birth control and the growth drops away and even becomes negative. A lot of Africa is stuck in stage 2 because we're shovelling food and medical aid at them, but not education.
Money is just an abstraction for wealth. A lot of African nations are very rich in raw materials, including things like diamonds and uranium that other countries want. The problem is that when this is exported there is little reinvestment in local infrastructure. Most of the money goes to corrupt governments or foreign corporations. Imagine how wealthy the USA would be 10 years from now if you destroyed all of the roads, water and power distribution, and telephone / Internet infrastructure.
Reduced food production
Not just that. Initiatives like Fairtrade have made a lot of farmers shift from growing food for local consumption to growing things like roses and coffee for export. Guaranteeing a price above the market value of these crops made them a lot more lucrative.
Want to help fix that? Stop buying Fairtrade products from Africa. Growing export crops (often ones that require a lot of water) takes farmland away from growing food for local consumption, which pushes the price up beyond the reach of the poorest people. I suppose this helps to address the population problem, but not in a particularly humane way.