Okay, point taken. You're right about the autonomous navigation one, I forgot about DART. And yeah, true, it's a matter of perspective, but I'll concede that one as robot error. Basically, they get to a certain age, and you have to let take responsibility for their own actions... And okay, yeah, Clementine, while not a failure, probably would have observed Geographos had there been a human aboard. So I'll concede that my statement was a bit of a sweeping generalization and scale it back.
*But* a lot of the failures in unmanned flights were simple mechanical failures. And a number of them were definitely human error, like a failure to convert units or a part incorrectly installed.
But, okay, I'll concede your point about AI --- so let's put that budget into AI!:D
Yeah, I completely agree. This guy is talking about letting astronauts be "explorers" --- I strongly believe that's going to happen much more effectively with privately-funded astronauts from companies that have only share-holders to answer to, rather than the government that has an entire --- highly excitable, if the past is any indication --- country.
That's a good idea, and then maybe we'd end up using these Ro Bots of which you speak so often that first it would become a commonly-used colocation, and then finally fuse into a single unit...."Robots." What a beautiful new word that will be!:D
"we're still a very, very long way from being able to replace astronauts with robots"
Since you make that assertion, I'm interested in hearing what astronauts have done that robots couldn't have done better.
"you might be able to cut down on safety measures, but you wouldn't really be saving that much anyways"
Everything I've read suggests the opposite: that manned spaceflight is hugely more expensive that unmanned, and I've never seen any evidence that suggests that any space flights had to be redone to correct robot error. (Human error, OTOH... *cough* Hubble *cough*) I'd like to see anything you have that suggests differently. (j/k about the Hubble telescope, btw, since they waited until the first regularly scheduled servicing mission to fix it, rather than making a special trip)
Hey, I got a physics degree because I wanted to be an astronaut, so I understand completely. And that's fine, if it's privatized. Otherwise, we have to ask, how much are your dreams worth to the entire United States?
Agreed; why's he so gung-ho when the main thing manned spaceflight does is get the public excited about funding...manned spaceflight. Unmanned spaceflight --- particularly as automation is just starting to get really exciting --- can deliver results at a significantly reduced cost.
Haha, no. Desktop apps like Word are for producing formal documents, which includes helping to limit human error. Google apps are based around Google's task of handling a range of input, from the formal to the informalist of the informal. It's about content production, vs. content handling. As much as Google branches out into social networking and whatever, they're still about content handling, not content production.
And in those parts of the world, it's fine to use it. But in other parts of the world...well, to paraphrase Kurt Vonnegutte, using certain terms gives small-minded people an excuse to ignore you. Calling that "being politically correct"...the choice is yours: do you want to be effective? If not, that's completely fine.
Funny how wrong those right-wingers are, since you have to discount the fact that people are born physically not classifiable into one of those two genders. It doesn't happen all the time, but genii aren't born all the time either, yet we're perfectly fine accepting that they exist and aren't freaks...
You might be getting modded down because you call them ladyboys. Use that term with your ladyboy friends if you want, but it might be better for the most part to go with more accepted terms like transgender and intersexed. It just sounds a little more respectful, so it's easier for people to hear your message.
In my state, they tried to make it illegal for companies to offer domestic partner benefits. While this would have affected all unmarried couples, it was targeted at gays. The biggest employers in the state came out against it, because they know they can't attract the best employees if they can't offer those types of benefits that are attractive to employees. The same is true of a good city to live in: these companies know that by making their locations more attractive, they will get better employees. Google is trying to make their locations more attractive, and who can blame them? It's business, plain and simple, and in my opinion it's a nice example that shows that the interests of companies and individuals can indeed be aligned, though they often are not.
My school made you pay for the credits when you tested out of something. But when you tested into something, you didn't have to pay for the courses below what you tested into. That's why it's so important to use the correct preposition.
Our broadcasts have become more efficient (thus less detectable to anything not on earth) and it seems likely the same is true of of other developing civilizations. They'd probably need to be at a certain point early in their broadcasting career for us to detect anything not specifically meant to go a long distance through soace.
That's why I like Cal Tech: their sports department has no influence on the admissions process, so to be on their team, you have to legitimately get into Cal Tech. And *damn* the basketball team looked happy on February 22, 2011, when they won their first conference game since 1985.:D
I have a hard time believing it's really legitimate for them to undo trades. I understand that in general, panicked selling is a terrible idea, e.g. people who didn't sell in panic during the Depression often ended up recouping their money later, while people who sold in desperation typically lost everything, but if people want and are able to find buyers in the situation, why shouldn't they be able to? Especially according to, oh, libertarian ideals?
That's only if you pick the right quotes. If you pick the wrong ones, you end up with:
“In a few cases I’ve heard there seems to be some inequality of pay based on gender,” Moll says, “which is something this movement will highlight.”
“As that traffic increases, it allows for things to slip through, such as breaks and lunches.” He says Genius Bar teams have “appointment after appointment after appointment,” and sometimes are not able to take their breaks on time, or are being asked to stay late to finish paperwork or other tasks.
“The expectation they’ve set for part-time people is being full-time minded,” Moll explains. Since the part-timers are committing to work almost any time of day or week, they can’t schedule second jobs to pick up additional money. “They want us to be available so much, that’s it’s difficult to get an outside job to pick up that slack. Some people are finding themselves in really difficult financial situations because of that.”
Sometimes employees get pulled aside and are “lambasted” by a manager without any opportunity to provide their side of what happened.
In my opinion, the picture you get then is a little different.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, point taken. You're right about the autonomous navigation one, I forgot about DART. And yeah, true, it's a matter of perspective, but I'll concede that one as robot error. Basically, they get to a certain age, and you have to let take responsibility for their own actions... And okay, yeah, Clementine, while not a failure, probably would have observed Geographos had there been a human aboard. So I'll concede that my statement was a bit of a sweeping generalization and scale it back.
*But* a lot of the failures in unmanned flights were simple mechanical failures. And a number of them were definitely human error, like a failure to convert units or a part incorrectly installed.
But, okay, I'll concede your point about AI --- so let's put that budget into AI! :D
Yeah, I completely agree. This guy is talking about letting astronauts be "explorers" --- I strongly believe that's going to happen much more effectively with privately-funded astronauts from companies that have only share-holders to answer to, rather than the government that has an entire --- highly excitable, if the past is any indication --- country.
That's a good idea, and then maybe we'd end up using these Ro Bots of which you speak so often that first it would become a commonly-used colocation, and then finally fuse into a single unit...."Robots." What a beautiful new word that will be! :D
"we're still a very, very long way from being able to replace astronauts with robots"
Since you make that assertion, I'm interested in hearing what astronauts have done that robots couldn't have done better.
"you might be able to cut down on safety measures, but you wouldn't really be saving that much anyways"
Everything I've read suggests the opposite: that manned spaceflight is hugely more expensive that unmanned, and I've never seen any evidence that suggests that any space flights had to be redone to correct robot error. (Human error, OTOH... *cough* Hubble *cough*) I'd like to see anything you have that suggests differently. (j/k about the Hubble telescope, btw, since they waited until the first regularly scheduled servicing mission to fix it, rather than making a special trip)
Hey, I got a physics degree because I wanted to be an astronaut, so I understand completely. And that's fine, if it's privatized. Otherwise, we have to ask, how much are your dreams worth to the entire United States?
Agreed; why's he so gung-ho when the main thing manned spaceflight does is get the public excited about funding...manned spaceflight. Unmanned spaceflight --- particularly as automation is just starting to get really exciting --- can deliver results at a significantly reduced cost.
Some people don't read messages, as every current and former tech support person can no doubt attest.
You must have missed the day they went over the game theory unit in your German class. Bet you did well on that final *scoff scoff*.
Haha, no. Desktop apps like Word are for producing formal documents, which includes helping to limit human error. Google apps are based around Google's task of handling a range of input, from the formal to the informalist of the informal. It's about content production, vs. content handling. As much as Google branches out into social networking and whatever, they're still about content handling, not content production.
I've been trying for a 12th post for ages! Oh, dangit, posted too slow! Okay, 15th post! 19th post!
And in those parts of the world, it's fine to use it. But in other parts of the world...well, to paraphrase Kurt Vonnegutte, using certain terms gives small-minded people an excuse to ignore you. Calling that "being politically correct"...the choice is yours: do you want to be effective? If not, that's completely fine.
Funny how wrong those right-wingers are, since you have to discount the fact that people are born physically not classifiable into one of those two genders. It doesn't happen all the time, but genii aren't born all the time either, yet we're perfectly fine accepting that they exist and aren't freaks...
You might be getting modded down because you call them ladyboys. Use that term with your ladyboy friends if you want, but it might be better for the most part to go with more accepted terms like transgender and intersexed. It just sounds a little more respectful, so it's easier for people to hear your message.
In my state, they tried to make it illegal for companies to offer domestic partner benefits. While this would have affected all unmarried couples, it was targeted at gays. The biggest employers in the state came out against it, because they know they can't attract the best employees if they can't offer those types of benefits that are attractive to employees. The same is true of a good city to live in: these companies know that by making their locations more attractive, they will get better employees. Google is trying to make their locations more attractive, and who can blame them? It's business, plain and simple, and in my opinion it's a nice example that shows that the interests of companies and individuals can indeed be aligned, though they often are not.
My school made you pay for the credits when you tested out of something. But when you tested into something, you didn't have to pay for the courses below what you tested into. That's why it's so important to use the correct preposition.
Except if they win, it will probably be the kid footing the bill for it...
Our broadcasts have become more efficient (thus less detectable to anything not on earth) and it seems likely the same is true of of other developing civilizations. They'd probably need to be at a certain point early in their broadcasting career for us to detect anything not specifically meant to go a long distance through soace.
Oh, so you're trying to destroy the cocktail-umbrella industry. I see how you are (anti-American).
...that or they're wearing steel-toed boots which they've been asked to take off so many times they don't even try to avoid it anymore.
thank God for that Physics degree I thought I'd never have a use for! Application process, here I come!
Yeah, the article didn't specify anything, nor did a link it contained that *seemed* like it ought to explain more about that...Hm...
That's why I like Cal Tech: their sports department has no influence on the admissions process, so to be on their team, you have to legitimately get into Cal Tech. And *damn* the basketball team looked happy on February 22, 2011, when they won their first conference game since 1985. :D
I have a hard time believing it's really legitimate for them to undo trades. I understand that in general, panicked selling is a terrible idea, e.g. people who didn't sell in panic during the Depression often ended up recouping their money later, while people who sold in desperation typically lost everything, but if people want and are able to find buyers in the situation, why shouldn't they be able to? Especially according to, oh, libertarian ideals?
That's only if you pick the right quotes. If you pick the wrong ones, you end up with:
“In a few cases I’ve heard there seems to be some inequality of pay based on gender,” Moll says, “which is something this movement will highlight.”
“As that traffic increases, it allows for things to slip through, such as breaks and lunches.” He says Genius Bar teams have “appointment after appointment after appointment,” and sometimes are not able to take their breaks on time, or are being asked to stay late to finish paperwork or other tasks.
“The expectation they’ve set for part-time people is being full-time minded,” Moll explains. Since the part-timers are committing to work almost any time of day or week, they can’t schedule second jobs to pick up additional money. “They want us to be available so much, that’s it’s difficult to get an outside job to pick up that slack. Some people are finding themselves in really difficult financial situations because of that.”
Sometimes employees get pulled aside and are “lambasted” by a manager without any opportunity to provide their side of what happened.
In my opinion, the picture you get then is a little different.
I seriously doubt they're really coded in a manner so modular as to be shuffleable.