To add to this: In the 1930s it would have been illegal for a German soldier to hold membership in a political party. It wasn't until after the war started the rules were changed.
The military was a competing center of power in Germany throughout most of Hitler's rule. That's why he turned on Röhm and the SA when the brass demanded he do so. He was afraid of the general staff and managed the relationship carefully as they were the only people who could depose him. It wasn't until 1943 that he had true dictatorial power over the military - prior to that misbehaving officers were usually allowed to retire.
That might have been true thirty years ago. But today women don't need an excuse to divorce their husbands. And not having an excuse doesn't affect the divorce settlement. You might actually look at what the MRA guys say before you give them straw men treatment.
When I say feminists are afraid of losing power, what I mean is sexually satisfied men are going to be quite a bit pickier than they would otherwise be. It doesn't have anything to do with marriage except to the extent a lack of sex pushes men to marry.
That's really what's under the academic gloss. Sex robots will end up being banned because women want them to be banned. Just like prostitution, and for the same reason. Feminists are afraid of a loss of power.
By the way, the way that porn negatively affects some people's attitudes towards their partners, particularly teenagers (who shouldn't own a sexbot, but inevitably will gain access to them just like porn) is quite well documented.
Google is right. If I have to have as much brain power invested in the trip as I would when I'm driving it defeats the purpose, and I may as well drive myself and not shell out a bunch of money for all the extra stuff a self-driving car requires.
I'm always skeptical of those stories. Minimum wage jobs aren't that hard to come by. Why would you commute to a minimum wage job hours away when you could get one within a few miles? I have to believe in most instances this is a case of someone who isn't legally allowed to work travelling to the nearest job where the employer is willing to look the other way.
The way economists measure labor productivity it's nothing more than in indicator of labor costs.
Years ago The Economist had a good example in an article on the subject. It included the example of one of the major hotel chains with a hotel in New York and Paris. I don't remember which one. The hotel in New York had five people washing dishes, because it was cheaper than buying an industrial dishwasher (including financing and maintenance). In Paris, they bought the dishwasher and hired a single person to load/unload. Now, on paper that French guy is doing the work of five New Yorkers, but he's not actually more productive in the traditional sense. It's just that it was too expensive to hire Parisians to do a job that could be done by machine.
At that point in their life, they should live in a care center where it's easier to attend for their needs.
In the US, at least, insurance companies try to keep you at home for as long as they can. I know a couple that has some kind of old folks home insurance. The company sends cleaners around to clean their house, and sends a nurse by every couple weeks to check their vitals and make sure they're taking medicines correctly. That's a whole lot cheaper than an elder facility, which typically runs about $7k/month.
Depends. If there are only a few dozen, those people have a pretty good chance of being revived because of scientific curiosity. But let's say over the course of a century or two a billion people were frozen. Nobody's going to revive even a tiny fraction of that number. Those future people will have their own lives to live.
I guess it depends on where you draw the line. From here:
According to the rural poverty line of annual per capita net income of 2,300 yuan (at 2010 constant prices), the population in poverty in rural areas numbered 82.49 million at the end of the year, or 16.50 million less than that at the end of 2012.
Unlike, it seems, pretty much everyone else here I'm not cynical about their motives. They have a job to do, which is to stop various hostile groups from harming American citizens. While it's true the backdoor thing is stupid for technical reasons, I'm not sure we want to be in a situation where security services are so blind it's impossible for them to detect the next big Islamist attack. It's not hard to posit scenarios where we're going to be wishing there had been a bit less data security.
I'd be careful hiring liberal arts majors. The traditional liberal arts degree was a good indication the holder could write well and formulate logical arguments. It wasn't the major you picked if you wanted an easy ride through college. The problem is so many schools have jettisoned much of the cannon with garbage self-validation and angry studies classes. Without a good understanding of the specific program you really don't know what you're getting.
Right. What she actually said was both true and perfectly reasonable. What the comedian said was a perfectly serviceable bit of lampooning. What's ridiculous is the number of people who confused the two.
"Conspiracy theory"? What a stupid thing to label it. Washington is all about different groups paying congressman off to divert the flow of cash dollars. If you don't realize that you're hopelessly naive.
It's the public republican stance/platform that all science and technology should be defunded in favor of creationism and weapon-capable vehicles like the heavy rockets.
I remember that. From this vantage it's hard to remember there were a bunch of really stupid people in 2008 who actually believed a line from a comedian was actually said by the politician she was lampooning. What makes it ironic is they did this because they thought it made them more intelligent.
Slashdot Mirror
To add to this: In the 1930s it would have been illegal for a German soldier to hold membership in a political party. It wasn't until after the war started the rules were changed.
The military was a competing center of power in Germany throughout most of Hitler's rule. That's why he turned on Röhm and the SA when the brass demanded he do so. He was afraid of the general staff and managed the relationship carefully as they were the only people who could depose him. It wasn't until 1943 that he had true dictatorial power over the military - prior to that misbehaving officers were usually allowed to retire.
That might have been true thirty years ago. But today women don't need an excuse to divorce their husbands. And not having an excuse doesn't affect the divorce settlement. You might actually look at what the MRA guys say before you give them straw men treatment.
When I say feminists are afraid of losing power, what I mean is sexually satisfied men are going to be quite a bit pickier than they would otherwise be. It doesn't have anything to do with marriage except to the extent a lack of sex pushes men to marry.
That's really what's under the academic gloss. Sex robots will end up being banned because women want them to be banned. Just like prostitution, and for the same reason. Feminists are afraid of a loss of power.
I see no indication this is true.
Google is right. If I have to have as much brain power invested in the trip as I would when I'm driving it defeats the purpose, and I may as well drive myself and not shell out a bunch of money for all the extra stuff a self-driving car requires.
A state senator from Missouri?
I'm always skeptical of those stories. Minimum wage jobs aren't that hard to come by. Why would you commute to a minimum wage job hours away when you could get one within a few miles? I have to believe in most instances this is a case of someone who isn't legally allowed to work travelling to the nearest job where the employer is willing to look the other way.
The way economists measure labor productivity it's nothing more than in indicator of labor costs.
Years ago The Economist had a good example in an article on the subject. It included the example of one of the major hotel chains with a hotel in New York and Paris. I don't remember which one. The hotel in New York had five people washing dishes, because it was cheaper than buying an industrial dishwasher (including financing and maintenance). In Paris, they bought the dishwasher and hired a single person to load/unload. Now, on paper that French guy is doing the work of five New Yorkers, but he's not actually more productive in the traditional sense. It's just that it was too expensive to hire Parisians to do a job that could be done by machine.
Name one.
Sure... if price is no object.
In the US, at least, insurance companies try to keep you at home for as long as they can. I know a couple that has some kind of old folks home insurance. The company sends cleaners around to clean their house, and sends a nurse by every couple weeks to check their vitals and make sure they're taking medicines correctly. That's a whole lot cheaper than an elder facility, which typically runs about $7k/month.
Depends. If there are only a few dozen, those people have a pretty good chance of being revived because of scientific curiosity. But let's say over the course of a century or two a billion people were frozen. Nobody's going to revive even a tiny fraction of that number. Those future people will have their own lives to live.
What is it about this topic that brings out the crazies?
They've basically invented an expensive, unreliable rubber bullet?
Unlike, it seems, pretty much everyone else here I'm not cynical about their motives. They have a job to do, which is to stop various hostile groups from harming American citizens. While it's true the backdoor thing is stupid for technical reasons, I'm not sure we want to be in a situation where security services are so blind it's impossible for them to detect the next big Islamist attack. It's not hard to posit scenarios where we're going to be wishing there had been a bit less data security.
Heh. I knew I should have checked that before submitting. Plus the I left out.
I'd be careful hiring liberal arts majors. The traditional liberal arts degree was a good indication the holder could write well and formulate logical arguments. It wasn't the major you picked if you wanted an easy ride through college. The problem is so many schools have jettisoned much of the cannon with garbage self-validation and angry studies classes. Without a good understanding of the specific program you really don't know what you're getting.
"Math is hard."
We in the US will give Mr. Matthews and his study all the consideration it deserves.
Right. What she actually said was both true and perfectly reasonable. What the comedian said was a perfectly serviceable bit of lampooning. What's ridiculous is the number of people who confused the two.
A billion? No, more like 300k. But that's half the number you would have found a generation ago.
"Conspiracy theory"? What a stupid thing to label it. Washington is all about different groups paying congressman off to divert the flow of cash dollars. If you don't realize that you're hopelessly naive.
Heh heh. Put the pipe down, man.
I remember that. From this vantage it's hard to remember there were a bunch of really stupid people in 2008 who actually believed a line from a comedian was actually said by the politician she was lampooning. What makes it ironic is they did this because they thought it made them more intelligent.
You just can't make this stuff up.