You're first paragraph not only fails to parse but makes absolutely no sense in rushing to its absurd conclusion. Sure, GMO implements changes that may otherwise be "statistically incredibly unlikely to happen", but that in no way "makes the process more unpredictable" nor does it suggest that it is justifiable "only in extreme situations". In fact, it suggests the opposite.
"The answer is EVERYONE should have to retest routinely (say every 3-5 years) and the test should actually be challenging to pass in a sense similar to a pilot's license. "
Prove it. Testing every driver every 3-5 years would be enormously expensive and you can cite NO evidence that it would make a meaningful improvement in safety.
"If you are getting older and lose the ability to cognitively react fast enough and properly while driving, that should result in your license being suspended. I don't see why that should even be controversial. Simple fact is that you become dangerous when that happens."
The controversy comes from the conflict of personal freedom vs. the interests of the whole. Safety would be assured by denying all drivers licenses, starting with yours. Why don't you advocate for that? Why should that be even controversial?
What's the definition of "fast enough". Oops, you insightful genius already falling apart.
"I expect/hope I live long enough it happens to me someday."
That you're young comes as absolutely no surprise. Leave such matters to the adults, son.
"Unfortunately we've designed far too much of our infrastructure around a presumed ability..."
Here's that ignorant comment once again. It's funny how stupid people see things so clearly.
"You simply have to recognize that we've designed our infrastructure too heavily on the false presumption that anyone above the age of 16 is physically and mentally capable of driving a car. This is obviously and manifestly not true and therefore is stupid policy. "
None of those statements is true, nor is your "manifestly" absolutist point of view interesting or insightful. We didn't "design our infrastructure", it has evolved over time with increasing understanding of safety based on enormous evidence of the very drivers you claim we fail to understand. We don't make any "false presumption" of physical or mental capability, we test and have done so before you were born. These clearly erroneous claims of your are not "policy" and therefore cannot be "stupid policy" and none of these claims are either "obviously" or "manifestly" not true. In short, you have a conclusion that you made facts to fit.
"The fact that errors are discovered is not evidence that science doesn't work, it's evidence that science does work, that it identifies and corrects humanity's errors -- including those generated by previous science."
No it's not. Identifying errors is not evidence of science even it applying scientific principles may lead to identifying errors. A scientist would understand this.
The fact is it's pretty shitty science when a scientist doesn't even understand his own tools. All this bloviating serves only to hide the issue.
No, you're just an idiot. The ground, i.e. the earth, has nothing to do with discharging a DC battery.
If you shorted a battery with "high grade metal wire" you'd rapidly cause the fire you were trying to avoid, that's assuming protection circuits don't interrupt the process and defeat the discharge entirely. You have to use a load designed to discharge the battery within it's operating parameters and that load has nothing to do with an earth ground.
I don't believe you're so much a "cynical critic" as an "uninformed fool".
"Tesla doesn't agree that going to 350kW is wise for passenger cars; looks to go to 200-250kW. With batteries, you get energy density or power density, but not both; high power density cells are not only more expensive, but less energy dense. And you can up the power density just by adding more cells. He feels you get a way better vehicle and driving experience for your money going with more energy dense than power dense, and compares it to what it would be like if you could buy a phone that could charge twice as fast but you had to charge it multiple times per day."
I did not listen to this answer, but assuming the summary is correct this causes me to lose a great deal of respect for Musk because it displays either a stunning lack of understanding of the problem or a stunning lack of respect for the audience. This answer is motivated my a lack of confidence to achieve, not my any insight as to what is "wise".
A passenger car will have enough battery to provide the desired range and it's pretty well understood the range of capacities that will be required for that. A large problem to overcome is recharge time and it is, without any doubt, true that 350kW will represent a significant improvement in recharge times over 200-250 kW for the range of capacities required. The goal isn't to achieve what we can achieve today, it's to satisfy actual needs going forward.
Furthermore, you can't "up the power density just by adding more cells" although I'll assume that's a summary error. Adding cells doesn't change density, just overall power, and it increases size, weight, and range at the same time. A passenger car battery needs to provide range, durability AND rapid charging so the fact is there's more work to do and limiting charging to lower powers isn't the right answer.
As time goes on I become more convinced that Tesla succeeds only because there aren't real players in the market yet. Once mature engineering talent brings products to market from established manufacturers, Tesla will be gone.
"If the patent shouldn't have been granted, then it isn't a taking of property because it was never properly instantiated as IP."
Not true. An applicant gives up property in exchange for the patent. Regardless of whether the patent was "properly instantiated as IP", whatever that means, the applicant has forfeited property, including fees paid and trade secrets revealed.
As for your other points, they seem equally thought out.
16:10 long predates Apple and was the widescreen monitor standard before HDTV came along. 16:9 replaced it for economies of scale, not for function. Apple simply retained the better format, it did not pioneer it.
3:2 is largely the same as 16:10, so it's not as though Apple stands alone here. 16:9 is an inferior format for computer display, although for the desktop it is now moot due to 4K and huge monitor sizes. For laptops there's really no question.
1) Facebook's business model is aggregating user data and monetize it. They aren't in the business of enabling others to profit.
2) If Facebook didn't want others to access user data, they wouldn't make it available. They only care when others use the data in a way that interferes with Facebook profit.
3) "People are upset because a company associated, with some degrees of separation, with Trump..." is a gross mischaracterization. People are upset with Facebook's business model and view recent events as evidence of the damage it can do. In previous campaigns, the results were not indicative of "the damage it can do" so people didn't take notice. Your the one with political spin here.
4) "...and that, worst of all, not just Democrats no [sic] how to do something with data. Even worse, one of the people involved as a Russian name, and that means that Putin did it with "z0mg h4x0rz" or something." More of your political spin. Keep your trumpism to yourself.
"Critically, let us think". Indeed, save us your political spin. Let's think critically, starting with you.
I just bought a 50" 4K IPS monitor for $600. Sure, you *can* spend $1000+ for a monitor, but why would you want to drive it over a single USB port with an entire dock of peripherals?
Unless the squirrel and the child are the same size, the answer to this is pretty straightforward. Furthermore, a squirrel is less predictable. Behavior and size will dictate this every time regardless of the value you place on the respective lives. Teach your child not to run in front of cars, problem solved.
Regarding the 4 lives vs 1, it is unlikely that an AI would encounter this hypothetical in a context where its programming would be able to make a difference, however one could argue that it could "choose" to "kill" all 5 and that would be acceptable since that car iwould not be the cause of the accident in any case.
The responsibility to avoid these situations lies with the people who cause them, not with the computers that can't solve them. It's not the train that's to blame when a person jumps in front of it.
A computer does NOT have to be programmed on what is acceptable to kill just like drivers don't have to think that way. Furthermore, the word "kill" is inherently inflammatory in this context. A car is not programmed to kill and your claim is absurd on its face.
It is not acceptable to "kill" a dog or a cow nor will a car even detect a spider. A car will avoid collisions always but cannot avoid them when put in a no-win situation, just like human drivers.
"So why have two conditions named the same thing, when they are only related by the word "insulin"?"
They don't have the same name. One is called type 1, the other type 2.
Furthermore, people who matter aren't confused by this, even if you are.
Also, this "research" does not suggest that diabetes is "actually five separate diseases", it "showed the patients could be separated into five distinct clusters". Those are not remotely the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Did your friends at Fox tell you that GMO and social justice were related?
You're first paragraph not only fails to parse but makes absolutely no sense in rushing to its absurd conclusion. Sure, GMO implements changes that may otherwise be "statistically incredibly unlikely to happen", but that in no way "makes the process more unpredictable" nor does it suggest that it is justifiable "only in extreme situations". In fact, it suggests the opposite.
The rest of your post is not nearly that good.
These aren't the only possibilities, they aren't necessarily simpler, and an answer to that question isn't needed for the observation to be valid.
You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
There's a comment worthy of the modern /.er. Say something stupid immediately after acknowledging you can't be bothered to read.
"The answer is EVERYONE should have to retest routinely (say every 3-5 years) and the test should actually be challenging to pass in a sense similar to a pilot's license. "
Prove it. Testing every driver every 3-5 years would be enormously expensive and you can cite NO evidence that it would make a meaningful improvement in safety.
"If you are getting older and lose the ability to cognitively react fast enough and properly while driving, that should result in your license being suspended. I don't see why that should even be controversial. Simple fact is that you become dangerous when that happens."
The controversy comes from the conflict of personal freedom vs. the interests of the whole. Safety would be assured by denying all drivers licenses, starting with yours. Why don't you advocate for that? Why should that be even controversial?
What's the definition of "fast enough". Oops, you insightful genius already falling apart.
"I expect/hope I live long enough it happens to me someday."
That you're young comes as absolutely no surprise. Leave such matters to the adults, son.
"Unfortunately we've designed far too much of our infrastructure around a presumed ability..."
Here's that ignorant comment once again. It's funny how stupid people see things so clearly.
"Right now we have frankly set the bar too low."
Prove it.
"I've seen far too many people who are able to retain their driver's license long beyond when they should."
I doubt it. Far more likely you haven't graduated high school yet.
"Drunk, senile, etc. If we let people who are clearly unable to operate a motor vehicle with a reasonable standard of performance then we are idiots."
Are you asserting that we let people drive drunk? Who's the idiot here?
"You simply have to recognize that we've designed our infrastructure too heavily on the false presumption that anyone above the age of 16 is physically and mentally capable of driving a car. This is obviously and manifestly not true and therefore is stupid policy. "
None of those statements is true, nor is your "manifestly" absolutist point of view interesting or insightful. We didn't "design our infrastructure", it has evolved over time with increasing understanding of safety based on enormous evidence of the very drivers you claim we fail to understand. We don't make any "false presumption" of physical or mental capability, we test and have done so before you were born. These clearly erroneous claims of your are not "policy" and therefore cannot be "stupid policy" and none of these claims are either "obviously" or "manifestly" not true. In short, you have a conclusion that you made facts to fit.
Someone gets it. You're not a scientist when you fundamentally don't know what you're looking at because you don't understand your tools.
"The fact that errors are discovered is not evidence that science doesn't work, it's evidence that science does work, that it identifies and corrects humanity's errors -- including those generated by previous science."
No it's not. Identifying errors is not evidence of science even it applying scientific principles may lead to identifying errors. A scientist would understand this.
The fact is it's pretty shitty science when a scientist doesn't even understand his own tools. All this bloviating serves only to hide the issue.
No, you're just an idiot. The ground, i.e. the earth, has nothing to do with discharging a DC battery.
If you shorted a battery with "high grade metal wire" you'd rapidly cause the fire you were trying to avoid, that's assuming protection circuits don't interrupt the process and defeat the discharge entirely. You have to use a load designed to discharge the battery within it's operating parameters and that load has nothing to do with an earth ground.
I don't believe you're so much a "cynical critic" as an "uninformed fool".
"Tesla doesn't agree that going to 350kW is wise for passenger cars; looks to go to 200-250kW. With batteries, you get energy density or power density, but not both; high power density cells are not only more expensive, but less energy dense. And you can up the power density just by adding more cells. He feels you get a way better vehicle and driving experience for your money going with more energy dense than power dense, and compares it to what it would be like if you could buy a phone that could charge twice as fast but you had to charge it multiple times per day."
I did not listen to this answer, but assuming the summary is correct this causes me to lose a great deal of respect for Musk because it displays either a stunning lack of understanding of the problem or a stunning lack of respect for the audience. This answer is motivated my a lack of confidence to achieve, not my any insight as to what is "wise".
A passenger car will have enough battery to provide the desired range and it's pretty well understood the range of capacities that will be required for that. A large problem to overcome is recharge time and it is, without any doubt, true that 350kW will represent a significant improvement in recharge times over 200-250 kW for the range of capacities required. The goal isn't to achieve what we can achieve today, it's to satisfy actual needs going forward.
Furthermore, you can't "up the power density just by adding more cells" although I'll assume that's a summary error. Adding cells doesn't change density, just overall power, and it increases size, weight, and range at the same time. A passenger car battery needs to provide range, durability AND rapid charging so the fact is there's more work to do and limiting charging to lower powers isn't the right answer.
As time goes on I become more convinced that Tesla succeeds only because there aren't real players in the market yet. Once mature engineering talent brings products to market from established manufacturers, Tesla will be gone.
It seems you don't know what ironic means.
A garage lock serves a useful purpose, you sacrifice nothing by omitting Alexa from your life.
"If the patent shouldn't have been granted, then it isn't a taking of property because it was never properly instantiated as IP."
Not true. An applicant gives up property in exchange for the patent. Regardless of whether the patent was "properly instantiated as IP", whatever that means, the applicant has forfeited property, including fees paid and trade secrets revealed.
As for your other points, they seem equally thought out.
16:10 long predates Apple and was the widescreen monitor standard before HDTV came along. 16:9 replaced it for economies of scale, not for function. Apple simply retained the better format, it did not pioneer it.
3:2 is largely the same as 16:10, so it's not as though Apple stands alone here. 16:9 is an inferior format for computer display, although for the desktop it is now moot due to 4K and huge monitor sizes. For laptops there's really no question.
2170 (21mm x 70mm) Implies nothing about the instantaneous current as it also Implies nothing about the battery technology.
parent didn't say that he thought they were secure or secret. Read it again.
1) Facebook's business model is aggregating user data and monetize it. They aren't in the business of enabling others to profit.
2) If Facebook didn't want others to access user data, they wouldn't make it available. They only care when others use the data in a way that interferes with Facebook profit.
3) "People are upset because a company associated, with some degrees of separation, with Trump..." is a gross mischaracterization. People are upset with Facebook's business model and view recent events as evidence of the damage it can do. In previous campaigns, the results were not indicative of "the damage it can do" so people didn't take notice. Your the one with political spin here.
4) "...and that, worst of all, not just Democrats no [sic] how to do something with data. Even worse, one of the people involved as a Russian name, and that means that Putin did it with "z0mg h4x0rz" or something." More of your political spin. Keep your trumpism to yourself.
"Critically, let us think". Indeed, save us your political spin. Let's think critically, starting with you.
I just bought a 50" 4K IPS monitor for $600. Sure, you *can* spend $1000+ for a monitor, but why would you want to drive it over a single USB port with an entire dock of peripherals?
a $1000 secondary monitor that can only be used through DisplayLink!
Unless the squirrel and the child are the same size, the answer to this is pretty straightforward. Furthermore, a squirrel is less predictable. Behavior and size will dictate this every time regardless of the value you place on the respective lives. Teach your child not to run in front of cars, problem solved.
Regarding the 4 lives vs 1, it is unlikely that an AI would encounter this hypothetical in a context where its programming would be able to make a difference, however one could argue that it could "choose" to "kill" all 5 and that would be acceptable since that car iwould not be the cause of the accident in any case.
The responsibility to avoid these situations lies with the people who cause them, not with the computers that can't solve them. It's not the train that's to blame when a person jumps in front of it.
A computer does NOT have to be programmed on what is acceptable to kill just like drivers don't have to think that way. Furthermore, the word "kill" is inherently inflammatory in this context. A car is not programmed to kill and your claim is absurd on its face.
It is not acceptable to "kill" a dog or a cow nor will a car even detect a spider. A car will avoid collisions always but cannot avoid them when put in a no-win situation, just like human drivers.
"private citizens are required by law to report some of this stuff"
Please cite the specific federal law(s) you are referring to. "Private citizens", in general, are under no such obligation.
And yes, these claims do "hold water", though you are likely to lose one way or another if you test them. Might doesn't make right.
"So why have two conditions named the same thing, when they are only related by the word "insulin"?"
They don't have the same name. One is called type 1, the other type 2.
Furthermore, people who matter aren't confused by this, even if you are.
Also, this "research" does not suggest that diabetes is "actually five separate diseases", it "showed the patients could be separated into five distinct clusters". Those are not remotely the same thing.