One of my local papers has been publishing articles based on interviews with Trump readers.
"I know he's lying, but it's good and I'd vote for him again"
Today's was even better... "I have black lung and would die without Obamacare so I'm glad it didn't get scrapped, but I'd vote for Trump again even if he got rid of it".
Real people. Saying incredibly stupid things that actually go up to and including an expression of willingness to DIE in order to have the Republicans win.
Solution: Find sites that are moderated so trolls and the merely very uncivil are ejected.
Unfortunately, proper implementation requires identity verification which stifles discussion since few people worth talking to are willing to put their entire life on public record for all eternity.
There's a secondary problem in that most people will end up gravitating to echo chambers, which most often ends up reinforcing ignorance which is kind of the opposite of the Internet's optimal use - sharing information.
>There's a difference between promoting a healthy diet and exercise and imposing a healthy diet and exercise.
Well, based on the obesity and heart disease rates I don't think 'imposing' was either A) what happened or B) a bad idea.
But then again, I'm Canadian and here health care is nearly universal and tax-funded... so there's a financial incentive to promote good health in the general population.
Outside of that I'm fine with an adult making adult choices even if they're bad ones, but I see far too many fat children. That is NOT acceptable; if your children are fat (and not suffering from a mobility-inhibiting condition) before they're old enough to move out, you've failed as a parent.
Huh. Weird, because I'm a developer and a father. And while my kids are older now, I sent them off to robotics camp when they were younger (Lego Mindstorms and a graphical programming interface).
> I laugh at "black belts" in the martial arts who still need Mommy's help making cereal in the morning
Everyone knows there's a difference between a child's black belt and an adult's. Much like with this computer camp, it's not expected to get the same results as you'd want for an adult.
It's about exposing them to the concept, making them comfortable and familiar with it to improve the odds they're interested in the real thing later on.
Is there something wrong with exposing children to the concept of coding?
I know I was coding by the time I was 9, and that eventually turned into a decent career for me.
I don't expect the kid to be a developer after this 'camp', and obviously the mom's just going as support for her child... but I still don't see how this is a bad thing, or a bad example to set.
This is the GOOD kind of publicity stunt, it's promoting education. It's like promoting healthy diet or exercise... it's kind of the thing you want coming from your leaders (or their subordinates, lackeys, and hangers-on) unless your society has no such issues to address.
>both Soviet Union and Russian Federation are countries like any other.
I live in Canada where our Prime Minister's critics don't frequently die under suspicious circumstances, so no. Where we don't have a long history of political prisoners.
>And if you feel an urge to find ways to paint them in negative light at any opportunity then you're a moron brainwashed by propaganda.
I think you're the moron here. Or maybe you just need to move to a nicer country.
You do understand that being a representative of the Soviet Union (and to a slightly lesser extent Russia) carries a very large risk of a long and unpleasant internment or 'accident' if you say the wrong thing?
Here in the West you get 'disgraced' and might have trouble finding work if the employer thinks of themselves as a patriot. There it's jail or death.
You can read it in the interview (between the lines). She's still afraid, which is why she's kissing Putin's ass. She's a state asset for life.
It's rare that someone sees what they do as wrong, they always have some justification to make it OK to themselves.
Yes, GP is someone who is using data mining for targeted advertising (and probably for tuning said advertising to make it more effective) with the goal of taking time you don't want to spend to sell you things you otherwise wouldn't buy.
One: Companies CAN sell your data. They're not mandated to do so... and they'd be stupid to screw those who can control them with legislation.
Two: If they're stupid enough, or you get the data through a middleman, they will simply find a law to charge you with for doing it. And if they can't do that, they'll draft such a law THEN charge you.
Best case, one or two of them is mildly embarrassed before you have a new home with very secure doors and windows.
Download it onto the local cops, switch it from regulation to legislation. In most cases, I expect it'd be similar in severity to a bylaw offense on the order of trespass to property or a noise complaint.
Fly a drone without a transponder and markings, it's open season to HERF it. Fly one with, and you can be found and dealt with. Of course, the cops are going to need HERF guns (even if only one per police station). Presumably ones with a built-in transponder reader. And they're going to need some training so they don't go dropping drones on people's heads as they shoot them down.
Now you're into cost/benefit territory. Just how big an issue are drones, and how much money are we willing to spend to police them? Cops already more or less ignore a lot of minor bylaw infractions because they have higher priority things to do.
Yeah... if you really believe that manifesto you're exactly the kind of person everyone else should be looking to lynch, because that attitude leads to a few people hoarding and the masses starving... and the hoarder saying they deserve it.
Not everyone starts out with equal means or opportunity, you know.
I know you were joking, but water's a bad idea because it's actually less forgiving of mistakes than pavement... and it alters significantly with weather.
>The problem to solve is one of Greed, as in what the hell are the 99% supposed to survive and thrive on once the AI/automation overlords declare employing a human a dead concept
Agreed. I've been arguing that for years but you get people from one side arguing about buggy whips and history repeating itself and people from the other side arguing 'post-scarcity paradise'.
Since there IS no practical solution to the issue - power's going to accumulate in the hands of whoever owns the robots - it gets tiring to ask people to think one up when you get constantly dismissed.
I expect we'll see an exponential trend in wealth disparity growth, and then a revolution that (hopefully) happens before the rich have the capacity to rule with the force of robotic armies.
It'd be NICE if everyone shared in the productivity increase, perhaps if we started by legislating reduced work weeks, but history shows there are enough greedy amoral assholes out there that this is unlikely, and the masses will stay complacent so long as their bellies are full and they have some entertainment to keep them occupied.
Few places investigate robots until it's easier than hiring meat, which usually means they're thinking of an 8 hour shift.
Once they get a robot and realize that (excepting maintenance) it can go 24/7 and doesn't need vacation, sick time, it turns out robots are around 6.5x more productive than a human (at a task a robot can currently perform). The fact that they don't need benefits either makes them even more cost effective.
And that's just uptime. Robots - for a lot of tasks, at least - have the capacity to be much, much faster than humans, with a much lower error rate if the task is sufficiently standardized.
>or perhaps a major award for success, can also help keep people focused and productively on task.
Oddly enough, there have been some interesting studies [citation needed, don't have it...] that show rewards lose motivational value very quickly as they grow, at least until they pass through 'reasonable' to 'excessive'.
People surprisingly don't give a shit about a $10 gift card for the coffee shop vs. $100 on their next pay. In terms of productivity, it's essentially the same.
They put their EVERYTHING into selling you a new car, but the real profit comes 2-3 years in when you start needing wear parts replaced and again a few years later for more serious service.
Gamestop didn't learn that lesson. You HAVE to push the new stuff to keep the used stuff happening. They decided to be parasitic instead of symbiotic and the host (the console companies) adapted by switching to online rentals.
It's a shame, because it could have been a very profitable model for building a customer base by making younger gamers able to afford more (but older games) so they're more likely to spend on the new stuff when they're older and have more income.
OTOH, the big guys are greedy enough they probably would have fought the resale market regardless. Maybe Gamestop was just a short-term business model from the get-go.
For the one benefit of your initial landing possibly being inline with the prevailing wind, you're adding dozens of safety issues, inefficiencies, and implementation issues.
The 'hoverpods' exist, they're scaled up quadrocopters. As you might expect, they're horribly fuel-inefficient, so you're going to need a lot of fuel depots (electric isn't going to cut it for a human-scale device).
The software to navigate and avoid obstacles exists... but you're still going to need safe places to navigate TO.
And you're going to have to carry a ballistic chute with it (more mass to waste more fuel) for low-altitude deployment in event of emergency.
And you're going to have to carry shells and screens to encase the rotors so nobody gets shredded. Ducting increases efficiency, screens reduce it. The mass is also more weight to carry.
We absolutely should not be doing this, just on the fuel requirements alone.
Slashdot Mirror
One of my local papers has been publishing articles based on interviews with Trump readers.
"I know he's lying, but it's good and I'd vote for him again"
Today's was even better... "I have black lung and would die without Obamacare so I'm glad it didn't get scrapped, but I'd vote for Trump again even if he got rid of it".
Real people. Saying incredibly stupid things that actually go up to and including an expression of willingness to DIE in order to have the Republicans win.
Solution: Find sites that are moderated so trolls and the merely very uncivil are ejected.
Unfortunately, proper implementation requires identity verification which stifles discussion since few people worth talking to are willing to put their entire life on public record for all eternity.
There's a secondary problem in that most people will end up gravitating to echo chambers, which most often ends up reinforcing ignorance which is kind of the opposite of the Internet's optimal use - sharing information.
Yeah, OK. You might want to take a breath an relax, because you're getting really upset about nothing.
>There's a difference between promoting a healthy diet and exercise and imposing a healthy diet and exercise.
Well, based on the obesity and heart disease rates I don't think 'imposing' was either A) what happened or B) a bad idea.
But then again, I'm Canadian and here health care is nearly universal and tax-funded... so there's a financial incentive to promote good health in the general population.
Outside of that I'm fine with an adult making adult choices even if they're bad ones, but I see far too many fat children. That is NOT acceptable; if your children are fat (and not suffering from a mobility-inhibiting condition) before they're old enough to move out, you've failed as a parent.
Huh. Weird, because I'm a developer and a father. And while my kids are older now, I sent them off to robotics camp when they were younger (Lego Mindstorms and a graphical programming interface).
Exactly. Long before a body transplant, we'll see spinal repair.
You walk before you run, you crawl before you walk. Right now, we're barely crawling and anyone who says we can go run a marathon is a liar.
> I laugh at "black belts" in the martial arts who still need Mommy's help making cereal in the morning
Everyone knows there's a difference between a child's black belt and an adult's. Much like with this computer camp, it's not expected to get the same results as you'd want for an adult.
It's about exposing them to the concept, making them comfortable and familiar with it to improve the odds they're interested in the real thing later on.
Is there something wrong with exposing children to the concept of coding?
I know I was coding by the time I was 9, and that eventually turned into a decent career for me.
I don't expect the kid to be a developer after this 'camp', and obviously the mom's just going as support for her child... but I still don't see how this is a bad thing, or a bad example to set.
Yep. It's all us. None of that reputation for corrupt government was earned. We're all just as bad. (That's sarcasm, just to make sure you understand)
Stop being so provincial, learn a bit about the world. Lots of places are worse, many are significantly better.
This is the GOOD kind of publicity stunt, it's promoting education. It's like promoting healthy diet or exercise... it's kind of the thing you want coming from your leaders (or their subordinates, lackeys, and hangers-on) unless your society has no such issues to address.
>both Soviet Union and Russian Federation are countries like any other.
I live in Canada where our Prime Minister's critics don't frequently die under suspicious circumstances, so no. Where we don't have a long history of political prisoners.
>And if you feel an urge to find ways to paint them in negative light at any opportunity then you're a moron brainwashed by propaganda.
I think you're the moron here. Or maybe you just need to move to a nicer country.
You do understand that being a representative of the Soviet Union (and to a slightly lesser extent Russia) carries a very large risk of a long and unpleasant internment or 'accident' if you say the wrong thing?
Here in the West you get 'disgraced' and might have trouble finding work if the employer thinks of themselves as a patriot. There it's jail or death.
You can read it in the interview (between the lines). She's still afraid, which is why she's kissing Putin's ass. She's a state asset for life.
It's rare that someone sees what they do as wrong, they always have some justification to make it OK to themselves.
Yes, GP is someone who is using data mining for targeted advertising (and probably for tuning said advertising to make it more effective) with the goal of taking time you don't want to spend to sell you things you otherwise wouldn't buy.
One: Companies CAN sell your data. They're not mandated to do so... and they'd be stupid to screw those who can control them with legislation.
Two: If they're stupid enough, or you get the data through a middleman, they will simply find a law to charge you with for doing it. And if they can't do that, they'll draft such a law THEN charge you.
Best case, one or two of them is mildly embarrassed before you have a new home with very secure doors and windows.
Download it onto the local cops, switch it from regulation to legislation. In most cases, I expect it'd be similar in severity to a bylaw offense on the order of trespass to property or a noise complaint.
Fly a drone without a transponder and markings, it's open season to HERF it. Fly one with, and you can be found and dealt with. Of course, the cops are going to need HERF guns (even if only one per police station). Presumably ones with a built-in transponder reader. And they're going to need some training so they don't go dropping drones on people's heads as they shoot them down.
Now you're into cost/benefit territory. Just how big an issue are drones, and how much money are we willing to spend to police them? Cops already more or less ignore a lot of minor bylaw infractions because they have higher priority things to do.
Yeah... if you really believe that manifesto you're exactly the kind of person everyone else should be looking to lynch, because that attitude leads to a few people hoarding and the masses starving... and the hoarder saying they deserve it.
Not everyone starts out with equal means or opportunity, you know.
I know you were joking, but water's a bad idea because it's actually less forgiving of mistakes than pavement... and it alters significantly with weather.
>The problem to solve is one of Greed, as in what the hell are the 99% supposed to survive and thrive on once the AI/automation overlords declare employing a human a dead concept
Agreed. I've been arguing that for years but you get people from one side arguing about buggy whips and history repeating itself and people from the other side arguing 'post-scarcity paradise'.
Since there IS no practical solution to the issue - power's going to accumulate in the hands of whoever owns the robots - it gets tiring to ask people to think one up when you get constantly dismissed.
I expect we'll see an exponential trend in wealth disparity growth, and then a revolution that (hopefully) happens before the rich have the capacity to rule with the force of robotic armies.
It'd be NICE if everyone shared in the productivity increase, perhaps if we started by legislating reduced work weeks, but history shows there are enough greedy amoral assholes out there that this is unlikely, and the masses will stay complacent so long as their bellies are full and they have some entertainment to keep them occupied.
Few places investigate robots until it's easier than hiring meat, which usually means they're thinking of an 8 hour shift.
Once they get a robot and realize that (excepting maintenance) it can go 24/7 and doesn't need vacation, sick time, it turns out robots are around 6.5x more productive than a human (at a task a robot can currently perform). The fact that they don't need benefits either makes them even more cost effective.
And that's just uptime. Robots - for a lot of tasks, at least - have the capacity to be much, much faster than humans, with a much lower error rate if the task is sufficiently standardized.
>or perhaps a major award for success, can also help keep people focused and productively on task.
Oddly enough, there have been some interesting studies [citation needed, don't have it...] that show rewards lose motivational value very quickly as they grow, at least until they pass through 'reasonable' to 'excessive'.
People surprisingly don't give a shit about a $10 gift card for the coffee shop vs. $100 on their next pay. In terms of productivity, it's essentially the same.
1. Dig a big hole.
2. Build all the support infrastructure in the hole - parking, terminals, support vehicles, etc.
3. Cover the hole and pave a big circle over it.
4. Put the tower right in the middle of the circle.
5. Mount lasers on the tower.
6. Use the lasers to 'paint' runway markers wherever you want based on the wind conditions.
7. Have 'pop up' structures to expose runway entrances to the underground complex on an unused portion of runway.
Ta-da!
They put their EVERYTHING into selling you a new car, but the real profit comes 2-3 years in when you start needing wear parts replaced and again a few years later for more serious service.
Gamestop didn't learn that lesson. You HAVE to push the new stuff to keep the used stuff happening. They decided to be parasitic instead of symbiotic and the host (the console companies) adapted by switching to online rentals.
It's a shame, because it could have been a very profitable model for building a customer base by making younger gamers able to afford more (but older games) so they're more likely to spend on the new stuff when they're older and have more income.
OTOH, the big guys are greedy enough they probably would have fought the resale market regardless. Maybe Gamestop was just a short-term business model from the get-go.
For the one benefit of your initial landing possibly being inline with the prevailing wind, you're adding dozens of safety issues, inefficiencies, and implementation issues.
Use the 'verse and make an anthology series. The actors are less expensive if you don't keep them too long.
The 'hoverpods' exist, they're scaled up quadrocopters. As you might expect, they're horribly fuel-inefficient, so you're going to need a lot of fuel depots (electric isn't going to cut it for a human-scale device).
The software to navigate and avoid obstacles exists... but you're still going to need safe places to navigate TO.
And you're going to have to carry a ballistic chute with it (more mass to waste more fuel) for low-altitude deployment in event of emergency.
And you're going to have to carry shells and screens to encase the rotors so nobody gets shredded. Ducting increases efficiency, screens reduce it. The mass is also more weight to carry.
We absolutely should not be doing this, just on the fuel requirements alone.