If I could pay FB a subscription fee in return for owning my own information then I might actually start using them. Their main hurdle would be to build up the trust they would need for me to actually believe their offer was genuine.
Let me get this straight, you fall into one of these special black holes, you survive (which, I assume, includes your memories),
It seems clear to me that to the extent that "you" fall into such a black hole, you are a particle not a human. Since, apparantly, once you're inside determinism no longer applies there is no way your human body with all its complex interactions will still function properly and you as a person will cease to be pretty fast.
The term "free will" is so poorly defined there is still debate over whether you can have both free will and have deterministic behaviour.
My prediction is that we will never define "free will" to include anything but humans, certainly not other animals. We might be prepared to extend it to sufficiently advanced machines (we made them after all, so their free will is our great success!) and also any intelligent extraterrestrials we might encounter.
Free will is a red herring. Why is it even important to know whether people have "free will"? It is little more than a poorly defined dick measuring contest we've invented to make ourselves look superior to all the other animals.
The various failure modes of the hyperloop system were described in some detail in the initial paper released by Elon Musk's team. In essence, the only catastrophic failure mode is if someone blows up the part of the tube that your pod is about to enter so that it cannot slow down in time to avoid crashing into the breach. Every other failure mode is fairly easy to deal with and the main drawback is that the failure of one pod or one tube section will slow down the entire system until they can get it handled.
The hyperloop system depends on being at very low pressure and most of the failure modes involve an increase in air pressure up towards outside pressure - either as a consequence of the failure itself or as a response to the failure. This slows down the pods safely, everything comes to a stop, and there will be some work to evacuate the passengers.
Governments that wish to censor HTTPS sites with proper TLS configurations and decent CAs really have only one option: to block the sites entirely.
This is an undesirable measure for a forward-looking regime like China's: they don't want to deny their tech sector etc. access to knowledge sources useful to their profession.
They have an alternative however, they can mirror wikipedia within China and censor their mirror while blocking the international site.
We have many trillions of dollars sunk into infrastructure that depends on the local environment being what it was when the infrastructure was designed and built. If the environment changes significantly in its average or peak temperature levels, or its humidity, or its solar radiation, or any of a range of other environmental factors, then the infrastructure may see reduced functionality, increased wear, or outright failure. As climate changes start to make themselves known in earnest we will have to start chasing them to patch up all of this infrastructure which imposes a tremendous cost on us. Instead of maintaining our existing bridges, road systems and hospitals we will need to come up with a hasty plan to relocate the Netherlands, build sea walls around Manhattan, allocate new areas and develop them to house everyone who needs to leave their old homes on the Equator, etc.
While the Antarctic may eventually become habitable, relocating e.g. a hundred million displaced Chinese there is going to be tremendously expensive and a huge drag on the global economy that we might have avoided with relative ease by simply stopping coal subsidies and letting market forces phase in solar for us.
If we're lucky, this will kick off a wave of forum sites coming up with clever hash systems allowing you to confirm that the message you posted on a forum has not been altered.
why is [Putin's] regime trying to make enemies of the most powerful nations in the world?
Because your greatness is measured by the enemies that you keep.
A Russia whose enemies are Georgia and Ukraine is a puny Russia. A Russia whose enemies are the US and NATO is a great Russia. Putin wants Russia to be great.
That provision is in there to prevent the ride sharing companies from putting the line "Charlie Baker Tax $0.20" on the receipts. It is obvious to everyone that these $0.20 will be coming from the customer, because Lyft doesn't actually print money, but the moment they expllicitly admit in writing that this is the case they are in vioation of the law.
Charlie Baker protecting his own ass in other words, making sure it's illegal to tell the voter why Lyft prices have gone up ever so slightly.
On the other hand, when you actually think your work is likely to get you suicided by the feds it gives the term a whole 'nother meaning wouldn't you say?
"Substantially different" isn't building on, it's being inspired by. The beauty of Cinderella is that everyone could tell their own Cinderella and explore different variations of the story without having to independently invent an entire backstory and setting for it. That lowers the barrier of entry so much anyone can do it, and you get a huge forest of different expressions from which you can pick the few gems and discard the rest. But we can't do this anymore. Instead we are force fed Peter Jackson fanfic, and pretty bad fanfic at that, and no one else gets to have a go.
Today's new cultural content should be based on works from the 50s, or from the 80s, or from the 2000s - but it isn't because nobody wants to go to prison for 10 years.
Instead we are doomed to just keep mindlessly gulping up new variations of what they had back in the 1800s. You can't build on top of Disney's stories because is verboten. You can't build on Rowling. You can't even build on Tolkien. Your only legal choice is eternal stagnation.
If you are trying to tax robotic labour by counting robots then you run into some fairly difficult problems. What is a robotic unit? A human unit is easy to identify and measure, but a robot as you point out can be anything.
If you tax per physical unit then instead of building a factory with a hundred independent robots in it, the company will build a fully integrated factory and call it one single robot.
So what else can you do? Tax per kg of robot perhaps, although this would seem to heavily skew the tax burden over into heavy lift tasks and again you'd get out of it by removing the brain part of your 10 ton excavator and putting it into a separate 5kg "pilot bot".
You could tax by algorithmic complexity maybe, however you might measure that. 1 robotic tax unit per human-brain-equivalent. Or tax per robotic manipulator, but do all useful robots have easily countable manipulators?
It would seem very much simpler to me to increase existing taxes on production and compensate employers of humans by reducing the employer tax burden, and leave robot inventors with the freedom to make their robots as production efficient as possible instead of having to tax tailor them for no good reason.
They pushed a car claiming it had run out of power into the garage when it still had considerable charge left.
As I remember it they had written into the script for the show that they would run the Tesla Roadster around the track until it was out of juice, and then push it into the garage with some suitably disparaging comments. What they found when they got on the track however was that the car had far too big a battery and they far too little time to actually drain it all. This is of course no technical obstacle to filming by the script since you cannot tell by looking at the car that it's still got lots of energy left and so they proceeded as planned. They only got caught because Tesla could tell from the logs it was far from out of battery.
If Top Gear is a consumer information show then this is fantastically dishonest and a big screw you to its viewers. It is not however, it is a sitcom with cars and making jokes is more important than informing the viewer.
The take home of all this is: whatever you see them doing on Top Gear, know that it was scripted and not much influenced by what they actually discovered in the field. If a car wins a "race" it's because the script said it should win. If a car breaks down it's because the script said it should break down. If a car looks like it's somehow better than another car, it's because the script said it should.
This is why Norway has cut all taxes on EVs, bringing them down to the same price region as ICEs. Up until recently there have been few EV models available though and the most interesting ones (Teslas) have been in the luxury segment. While they compete favourably there this segment is out of reach for many, and your main alternative has been the Nissan Leaf which may or may not have the necessary range.
There is also a lack of a decent sized second hand car market for EVs, simply because the good models are so new their owners aren't looking to sell them yet. This makes it difficult to get a cheap used car which is important to many.
By 2025 these problems will be long gone, there will be myriad models available in all price segments, and there will be no rational reason to buy ICE vehicles anymore. Which is essentially what the Norwegian government is saying.
If they're good enough to stand on their own, then why do they need legislation? Your post makes no sense.
EVs are still very expensive, and additionally people are a little afraid of this new technology. These two conspire to drastically limit the number of car buyers willing to switch from ICE to EV. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, we'd just give it 20-30 years and the problem would sort itself organically. Given that cutting ICE vehicles represents one of the easiest ways to reduce global pollution, however, accellerating that switch through legislation has become attractive, maybe even imperative.
It's also very cold... I wonder what that does for batteries:)
In a well designed EV the cold isn't a problem. I have owned a Tesla since 2012 and driven it through both freezing cold and Norwegian blizzards, and the main problem in the latter case is visibility. But that's not an EV issue.
So, European values don't actually include free expression.
The values do but the laws don't. If you look at European freedom of speech laws then they all basically say, in different languages, "freedom of speech is guaranteed, insomuch as it's speech the government doesn't find objectionable". The exception is codified into the law itself.
When your legal guarantee for freedom of speech is this vague, you only have as much freedom of speech at any given time as your govt is prepared to give you. Europe survives this by having a very strong tradition for freedom of speech and so for the most part your govt will let you say a lot of really stupid stuff before they lock you up.
Slashdot Mirror
All Hail Azathoth! The Primordial Chaos that gave Birth to All and shall Devour All!
Enable javascript to improve security for Google, not for yourself.
To improve security for yourself, don't have a Google account.
Actually I think we do need to change it. We need to bring programming into the modern world.
master/slave should be changed to warden/convict.
If I could pay FB a subscription fee in return for owning my own information then I might actually start using them. Their main hurdle would be to build up the trust they would need for me to actually believe their offer was genuine.
Let me get this straight, you fall into one of these special black holes, you survive (which, I assume, includes your memories),
It seems clear to me that to the extent that "you" fall into such a black hole, you are a particle not a human. Since, apparantly, once you're inside determinism no longer applies there is no way your human body with all its complex interactions will still function properly and you as a person will cease to be pretty fast.
The term "free will" is so poorly defined there is still debate over whether you can have both free will and have deterministic behaviour.
My prediction is that we will never define "free will" to include anything but humans, certainly not other animals. We might be prepared to extend it to sufficiently advanced machines (we made them after all, so their free will is our great success!) and also any intelligent extraterrestrials we might encounter.
Free will is a red herring. Why is it even important to know whether people have "free will"? It is little more than a poorly defined dick measuring contest we've invented to make ourselves look superior to all the other animals.
The various failure modes of the hyperloop system were described in some detail in the initial paper released by Elon Musk's team. In essence, the only catastrophic failure mode is if someone blows up the part of the tube that your pod is about to enter so that it cannot slow down in time to avoid crashing into the breach. Every other failure mode is fairly easy to deal with and the main drawback is that the failure of one pod or one tube section will slow down the entire system until they can get it handled.
The hyperloop system depends on being at very low pressure and most of the failure modes involve an increase in air pressure up towards outside pressure - either as a consequence of the failure itself or as a response to the failure. This slows down the pods safely, everything comes to a stop, and there will be some work to evacuate the passengers.
Strictly speaking a laptop isn't a desktop computer.
Not having kept in touch, how is linux battery and sleep management these days?
Governments that wish to censor HTTPS sites with proper TLS configurations and decent CAs really have only one option: to block the sites entirely.
This is an undesirable measure for a forward-looking regime like China's: they don't want to deny their tech sector etc. access to knowledge sources useful to their profession.
They have an alternative however, they can mirror wikipedia within China and censor their mirror while blocking the international site.
We have many trillions of dollars sunk into infrastructure that depends on the local environment being what it was when the infrastructure was designed and built. If the environment changes significantly in its average or peak temperature levels, or its humidity, or its solar radiation, or any of a range of other environmental factors, then the infrastructure may see reduced functionality, increased wear, or outright failure. As climate changes start to make themselves known in earnest we will have to start chasing them to patch up all of this infrastructure which imposes a tremendous cost on us. Instead of maintaining our existing bridges, road systems and hospitals we will need to come up with a hasty plan to relocate the Netherlands, build sea walls around Manhattan, allocate new areas and develop them to house everyone who needs to leave their old homes on the Equator, etc.
While the Antarctic may eventually become habitable, relocating e.g. a hundred million displaced Chinese there is going to be tremendously expensive and a huge drag on the global economy that we might have avoided with relative ease by simply stopping coal subsidies and letting market forces phase in solar for us.
If we're lucky, this will kick off a wave of forum sites coming up with clever hash systems allowing you to confirm that the message you posted on a forum has not been altered.
Easy. Just put reddit on the blockchain.
why is [Putin's] regime trying to make enemies of the most powerful nations in the world?
Because your greatness is measured by the enemies that you keep.
A Russia whose enemies are Georgia and Ukraine is a puny Russia. A Russia whose enemies are the US and NATO is a great Russia. Putin wants Russia to be great.
That provision is in there to prevent the ride sharing companies from putting the line "Charlie Baker Tax $0.20" on the receipts. It is obvious to everyone that these $0.20 will be coming from the customer, because Lyft doesn't actually print money, but the moment they expllicitly admit in writing that this is the case they are in vioation of the law.
Charlie Baker protecting his own ass in other words, making sure it's illegal to tell the voter why Lyft prices have gone up ever so slightly.
On the other hand, when you actually think your work is likely to get you suicided by the feds it gives the term a whole 'nother meaning wouldn't you say?
"Substantially different" isn't building on, it's being inspired by. The beauty of Cinderella is that everyone could tell their own Cinderella and explore different variations of the story without having to independently invent an entire backstory and setting for it. That lowers the barrier of entry so much anyone can do it, and you get a huge forest of different expressions from which you can pick the few gems and discard the rest. But we can't do this anymore. Instead we are force fed Peter Jackson fanfic, and pretty bad fanfic at that, and no one else gets to have a go.
Today's new cultural content should be based on works from the 50s, or from the 80s, or from the 2000s - but it isn't because nobody wants to go to prison for 10 years.
Instead we are doomed to just keep mindlessly gulping up new variations of what they had back in the 1800s. You can't build on top of Disney's stories because is verboten. You can't build on Rowling. You can't even build on Tolkien. Your only legal choice is eternal stagnation.
You had me at pro-tip and lost me at SJW.
Anything against the law? Really?
You should try thinking things through before posting them.
The entire point of the Bill of rights is to list some things that are innate rights even if there is a law against them.
If you are trying to tax robotic labour by counting robots then you run into some fairly difficult problems. What is a robotic unit? A human unit is easy to identify and measure, but a robot as you point out can be anything.
If you tax per physical unit then instead of building a factory with a hundred independent robots in it, the company will build a fully integrated factory and call it one single robot.
So what else can you do? Tax per kg of robot perhaps, although this would seem to heavily skew the tax burden over into heavy lift tasks and again you'd get out of it by removing the brain part of your 10 ton excavator and putting it into a separate 5kg "pilot bot".
You could tax by algorithmic complexity maybe, however you might measure that. 1 robotic tax unit per human-brain-equivalent. Or tax per robotic manipulator, but do all useful robots have easily countable manipulators?
It would seem very much simpler to me to increase existing taxes on production and compensate employers of humans by reducing the employer tax burden, and leave robot inventors with the freedom to make their robots as production efficient as possible instead of having to tax tailor them for no good reason.
They pushed a car claiming it had run out of power into the garage when it still had considerable charge left.
As I remember it they had written into the script for the show that they would run the Tesla Roadster around the track until it was out of juice, and then push it into the garage with some suitably disparaging comments. What they found when they got on the track however was that the car had far too big a battery and they far too little time to actually drain it all. This is of course no technical obstacle to filming by the script since you cannot tell by looking at the car that it's still got lots of energy left and so they proceeded as planned. They only got caught because Tesla could tell from the logs it was far from out of battery.
If Top Gear is a consumer information show then this is fantastically dishonest and a big screw you to its viewers. It is not however, it is a sitcom with cars and making jokes is more important than informing the viewer.
The take home of all this is: whatever you see them doing on Top Gear, know that it was scripted and not much influenced by what they actually discovered in the field. If a car wins a "race" it's because the script said it should win. If a car breaks down it's because the script said it should break down. If a car looks like it's somehow better than another car, it's because the script said it should.
This is why Norway has cut all taxes on EVs, bringing them down to the same price region as ICEs. Up until recently there have been few EV models available though and the most interesting ones (Teslas) have been in the luxury segment. While they compete favourably there this segment is out of reach for many, and your main alternative has been the Nissan Leaf which may or may not have the necessary range.
There is also a lack of a decent sized second hand car market for EVs, simply because the good models are so new their owners aren't looking to sell them yet. This makes it difficult to get a cheap used car which is important to many.
By 2025 these problems will be long gone, there will be myriad models available in all price segments, and there will be no rational reason to buy ICE vehicles anymore. Which is essentially what the Norwegian government is saying.
If they're good enough to stand on their own, then why do they need legislation? Your post makes no sense.
EVs are still very expensive, and additionally people are a little afraid of this new technology. These two conspire to drastically limit the number of car buyers willing to switch from ICE to EV. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, we'd just give it 20-30 years and the problem would sort itself organically. Given that cutting ICE vehicles represents one of the easiest ways to reduce global pollution, however, accellerating that switch through legislation has become attractive, maybe even imperative.
It's also very cold... I wonder what that does for batteries :)
In a well designed EV the cold isn't a problem. I have owned a Tesla since 2012 and driven it through both freezing cold and Norwegian blizzards, and the main problem in the latter case is visibility. But that's not an EV issue.
So, European values don't actually include free expression.
The values do but the laws don't. If you look at European freedom of speech laws then they all basically say, in different languages, "freedom of speech is guaranteed, insomuch as it's speech the government doesn't find objectionable". The exception is codified into the law itself.
When your legal guarantee for freedom of speech is this vague, you only have as much freedom of speech at any given time as your govt is prepared to give you. Europe survives this by having a very strong tradition for freedom of speech and so for the most part your govt will let you say a lot of really stupid stuff before they lock you up.