Umm... that is not evidence that "cameras cause accidents". It is evidence that "shortening yellow light duration causes accidents".
Installing the cameras cause the yellow light duration to be shortened, so as to increase revenue.
Just one of the many problems caused by the hidden tax of fines. If you think otherwise, consider how quickly fine revenue would drop if all fines by law had to be given to the taxpayers as reduced taxes, instead of lining the coffers of the department/city/state that collected them.
Looks like advancements in technology will bring the brokenness of our patent system to the attention of the everyday man, much like digital copies did for copyright. Similarly to copying tapes, the copies will likely be of lower quality... for now.
Yup! One of the clues that Lenovo already knew this was bad software because it is designed to hijack people's data to inject ads, breaks security, and can't be uninstalled (hence the company is currently working on an uninstaller).
In unrelated news, a murderer that got caught said that the bullet was intended to enhance circulation, but he received negative feedback from his customers, and is working on instructions on how to remove all traces of the bullet (except, of course, for all the damage it already caused).
If history is any precedent, we will give sentient aliens whatever rights are economically convenient, and then make up a post hoc rationale.
Correct. Note, however, that no one makes up any excuses for eating broccoli. And for eating cows, "they're delicious" is a good enough rationale for most people. More advanced rationalization was necessary for black slaves and for Native Americans. Making up a post hoc rationale is only necessary because we implicitly acknowledge certain rights.
Just because we acknowledge (implicitly or explicitly) someone as having human rights, doesn't mean we would treat them well. Back in the old days, raping, pillaging, genocide, and enslavement were common enough, as abhorrent as it would be to us now. People used to watch people fight to death in an arena, for fun. It's an "us" vs "them" thing, "they" are dangerous and can or maybe even should be treated badly. Serfdom was progress, and modern wage slavery is yet more progress. The "us" vs "them" distinction is active to a lesser extent among the classes and professions. As for aliens, they are definitely a "them".
They absolutely are. If we met non-intelligent aliens people would have no trouble treating them as having no rights, as pets, food source, or whatever. If we met intelligent aliens we would treat them as having human rights. Similarly, we may soon have to deal with the question of what sort of rights artificial intelligence have (both computer artificial intelligence, and biotechological artificial intelligence).
The main reasons we give rights to the very young and comatose and mentally handicapped are (in no particular order) because we know better than to allow someone the power to decide who does or doesn't get human rights, because of empathy, because it sends a very clear message that certain things are unacceptable. Even so, less intelligent humans lose some of their rights (eg the right to sign binding legal contracts). And more intelligent (and cuter) animals get additional rights not granted to less intelligent animals, so eg kittens have more rights than spiders.
I'm seriously regretting any anti-bacterial soap I've used over the years right about now.
I'm regretting the anti-bacterial soap that every moron is using, the evil marketers that tout it as a feature, and the greedy companies that capitalize on people's fear of mostly harmless bacteria.
In case anyone is wondering, one of the best antibacterials is other bacteria, but on the other hand, there are bacteria specialized in surviving in hospital environments including both antibiotics and chemical cleaners. So not only do these soaps train antibiotic resistance in bacteria, but they also clear the way for some already resistant bacteria.
My best guess is, the alien invasion fleet would look like a bullet-sized ship carrying a few milligrams of antimatter, and traveling a bit below lightspeed. We might be able to notice it since it would be in a deceleration phase which means it would be blasting high-energy exhaust in our general direction, but odds are pretty good we wouldn't even notice. When it lands, it's tiny fleet of nanobots will start converting rocks, buildings, vehicles, and maybe plants and animals, into more nanobots. Good odds that the nanobots start building larger structures or machinery. The nanobots would be converting the planet to something suitable for the aliens, or perhaps simply disassembling it for space construction materials. Good odds that the nanobots would not react if we attacked them, but it's hard to attack something that's eating your weapons and factories. Like a virulent disease, they'd wipe us out without even knowing we're here.
If we're lucky, the aliens notice us before the nanobots finish us off, call off the invasion, and put a "nature preserve" sign on our planet. After all, they have trillions of other planets to use, and ours wouldn't be particularly more valuable than any of the other rocky planets. And there's good odds that the aliens have some level of curiosity or empathy (because both of those would help technological progress). Good odds that the empathy is aimed at some random species which looks like the alien version of kittens.
Having them as addons is the browser makers getting the message. Some people want what an addon does, some people don't. Providing capability for addons to deliver functionality is giving people exactly what they want, and not burdening them with stuff they don't want.
If most people want a certain addon, it could be included by default in a new install. Then the people who don't want it can still remove it. I wish they had done it this way with a Chrome-clone addon that could be removed, instead of converting Firefox into wannabe-Chrome.
Web designers are under the impression that input checking always has to be done on the client side.
I don't know much about this sort of thing, but doesn't that mean that anyone who edits the client program to eliminate those checks can hack your site?
I think it's pretty well understood that there *are* terrorists and a lot of them and they're walking among us.
Indeed. In fact, in America, about half of all politicians thrive of terrorizing the public with threats of bodily harm, albeit indirectly because of drugs/criminals/pedophiles/illegal aliens/evil muslims/death panel obamacare/"they"/etc, arguing that you will only be safe once you give up your freedoms and start a new war. The other half of politicians thrive on terrorizing the public in a slightly different manner, arguing that you will only be safe once you give up your money. And the entire news media thrives on terrorizing everyone by greatly overplaying the significance of various violent and unfortunate events.
Since terrorism is defined as
noun: terrorism
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
it's pretty clear that all the above are terrorists and must be stopped. Most politicians use fear to convince people to vote for them, and most news media picks a political side and thrives on fear and sensationalization.
In Carl Sagan's book Contact, Dr. Ellie Arroway mathematically proved that Pi, calculated out to some huge number, had a series of 1 and 0 that when arranged in a raster, formed a circle,
Correct! Since Pi has infinitely many digits, and is non-repeating, that means that it has "a series of 1 and 0 that when arranged in a raster, form a circle". In related news, the square root of 2 contains the entire works of Shakespeare (in ASCII format).
Let me explain. Minimum wage directly affects only those employers whose business model depends on low-wage, unskilled labor. But wages can be guaranteed directly by society (via government) instead.
If you divorce the wage received from the person paying the wage, you could end with a situation where people have totally useless jobs, because why not? Let's say your friend hires you for an "experiment" to see how long your computer/TV/chair/couch/bed etc last when being used, for 1 cent per hour. And you hire your friend to do the same with different brands. Now both you and your friend are "working" for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, without producing anything of value, yet getting paid a full wage (and overtime!).
We're now forty years after the first oil shock, and, for lack of a valid alternative, oil still runs 98% of transportation.
How come peak oil isn't listed?
Because while peak oil is a significant annoyance, it isn't a civilization-collapsing problem. We can make liquid or gaseous fuel from coal, or from biomass, or from solar/nuclear/wind via electricity. We aren't doing those because oil is cheaper, not because they're unavailable.
Extreme climate change Nuclear war Global pandemic Major asteroid impact Super volcano Ecological catastrophe Global system catastrophe Synthetic biology Nanotechnology Artificial intelligence Future bad global governance Unknown consequences/karmawhoring>
Kind of weak list, IMHO. For example, where is "overpopulation?"
Overpopulation is subdivided into: Extreme climate change (overpopulation --> too many humans messing with the climate) Nuclear war (overpopulation --> conflict over scarce resources) Global pandemic (overpopulation --> breeding grounds for disease) Ecological catastrophe (overpopulation --> destruction of habitat) Global system catastrophe (overpopulation --> destruction of habitat/overuse of resources) Synthetic biology (overpopulation --> need to feed all those people) Future bad global governance (overpopulation --> need global government to prevent conflict caused by overpopulation) Unknown consequences (overpopulation --> unknown consequences of overpopulation)
I'll nominate for unknown consequences: failure to reproduce: technological progress makes it even easier to avoid having children, while providing more interesting things to do than have children. Besides this, current and near future overpopulation cause it to also be considered virtuous not to have children. But as population dwindles, there is more stuff for everyone which further compounds the problem while increasing decadence. Humans saved from extinction by Darwin and/or some "crazy" religious group, but the rest of civilization collapses.
It appears that the banking sector will do what they usually do—extract wealth and destroy jobs.
Aren't they doing that because the government/judicial system decided that bankers get to keep big piles of profits when things go well, and also when things go poorly, and also when things go criminally negligent? When they get bailout money instead of jailtime and personal fines, the incentive is to take the biggest risks since if anything goes wrong the taxpayer will rescue them.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm ... that is not evidence that "cameras cause accidents". It is evidence that "shortening yellow light duration causes accidents".
Installing the cameras cause the yellow light duration to be shortened, so as to increase revenue.
Just one of the many problems caused by the hidden tax of fines. If you think otherwise, consider how quickly fine revenue would drop if all fines by law had to be given to the taxpayers as reduced taxes, instead of lining the coffers of the department/city/state that collected them.
Looks like advancements in technology will bring the brokenness of our patent system to the attention of the everyday man, much like digital copies did for copyright. Similarly to copying tapes, the copies will likely be of lower quality... for now.
Got found out ...
Yup! One of the clues that Lenovo already knew this was bad software because it is designed to hijack people's data to inject ads, breaks security, and can't be uninstalled (hence the company is currently working on an uninstaller).
In unrelated news, a murderer that got caught said that the bullet was intended to enhance circulation, but he received negative feedback from his customers, and is working on instructions on how to remove all traces of the bullet (except, of course, for all the damage it already caused).
So two space-faring races meet ... who is going to come out on top, all other things being equal?
The one orbiting the other one's planet.
When space is the most hostile environment known to man, being passive seems unlikely to work very well.
Like how animals fight to death in the face of a fire or flood or volcanic eruption?
Are the cameras (to prove that the damage to the car was there before the wash) also hackable?
Laws are for the little people.
Is there any way to know if the NSA has backdoored our processors, BIOS, operating system, drivers, etc?
Under what possible interpretation of the law can this be considered the actions of lawful government?
The "we know about all your secrets" interpretation of the law.
If history is any precedent, we will give sentient aliens whatever rights are economically convenient, and then make up a post hoc rationale.
Correct. Note, however, that no one makes up any excuses for eating broccoli. And for eating cows, "they're delicious" is a good enough rationale for most people. More advanced rationalization was necessary for black slaves and for Native Americans. Making up a post hoc rationale is only necessary because we implicitly acknowledge certain rights.
Just because we acknowledge (implicitly or explicitly) someone as having human rights, doesn't mean we would treat them well. Back in the old days, raping, pillaging, genocide, and enslavement were common enough, as abhorrent as it would be to us now. People used to watch people fight to death in an arena, for fun. It's an "us" vs "them" thing, "they" are dangerous and can or maybe even should be treated badly. Serfdom was progress, and modern wage slavery is yet more progress. The "us" vs "them" distinction is active to a lesser extent among the classes and professions. As for aliens, they are definitely a "them".
Human rights are not based on intelligence.
They absolutely are. If we met non-intelligent aliens people would have no trouble treating them as having no rights, as pets, food source, or whatever. If we met intelligent aliens we would treat them as having human rights. Similarly, we may soon have to deal with the question of what sort of rights artificial intelligence have (both computer artificial intelligence, and biotechological artificial intelligence).
The main reasons we give rights to the very young and comatose and mentally handicapped are (in no particular order) because we know better than to allow someone the power to decide who does or doesn't get human rights, because of empathy, because it sends a very clear message that certain things are unacceptable. Even so, less intelligent humans lose some of their rights (eg the right to sign binding legal contracts). And more intelligent (and cuter) animals get additional rights not granted to less intelligent animals, so eg kittens have more rights than spiders.
I'm seriously regretting any anti-bacterial soap I've used over the years right about now.
I'm regretting the anti-bacterial soap that every moron is using, the evil marketers that tout it as a feature, and the greedy companies that capitalize on people's fear of mostly harmless bacteria.
In case anyone is wondering, one of the best antibacterials is other bacteria, but on the other hand, there are bacteria specialized in surviving in hospital environments including both antibiotics and chemical cleaners. So not only do these soaps train antibiotic resistance in bacteria, but they also clear the way for some already resistant bacteria.
Well, actually resistance is surprisingly effective.
Doesn't encryption imply some level of trust in the other party?
Lack of encryption additionally implies some level of trust in everyone between you and the other party.
My best guess is, the alien invasion fleet would look like a bullet-sized ship carrying a few milligrams of antimatter, and traveling a bit below lightspeed. We might be able to notice it since it would be in a deceleration phase which means it would be blasting high-energy exhaust in our general direction, but odds are pretty good we wouldn't even notice. When it lands, it's tiny fleet of nanobots will start converting rocks, buildings, vehicles, and maybe plants and animals, into more nanobots. Good odds that the nanobots start building larger structures or machinery. The nanobots would be converting the planet to something suitable for the aliens, or perhaps simply disassembling it for space construction materials. Good odds that the nanobots would not react if we attacked them, but it's hard to attack something that's eating your weapons and factories. Like a virulent disease, they'd wipe us out without even knowing we're here.
If we're lucky, the aliens notice us before the nanobots finish us off, call off the invasion, and put a "nature preserve" sign on our planet. After all, they have trillions of other planets to use, and ours wouldn't be particularly more valuable than any of the other rocky planets. And there's good odds that the aliens have some level of curiosity or empathy (because both of those would help technological progress). Good odds that the empathy is aimed at some random species which looks like the alien version of kittens.
I've heard toucans have really big peckers.
Having them as addons is the browser makers getting the message. Some people want what an addon does, some people don't. Providing capability for addons to deliver functionality is giving people exactly what they want, and not burdening them with stuff they don't want.
If most people want a certain addon, it could be included by default in a new install. Then the people who don't want it can still remove it. I wish they had done it this way with a Chrome-clone addon that could be removed, instead of converting Firefox into wannabe-Chrome.
Web designers are under the impression that input checking always has to be done on the client side.
I don't know much about this sort of thing, but doesn't that mean that anyone who edits the client program to eliminate those checks can hack your site?
I think it's pretty well understood that there *are* terrorists and a lot of them and they're walking among us.
Indeed. In fact, in America, about half of all politicians thrive of terrorizing the public with threats of bodily harm, albeit indirectly because of drugs/criminals/pedophiles/illegal aliens/evil muslims/death panel obamacare/"they"/etc, arguing that you will only be safe once you give up your freedoms and start a new war. The other half of politicians thrive on terrorizing the public in a slightly different manner, arguing that you will only be safe once you give up your money. And the entire news media thrives on terrorizing everyone by greatly overplaying the significance of various violent and unfortunate events.
Since terrorism is defined as
noun: terrorism
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
it's pretty clear that all the above are terrorists and must be stopped. Most politicians use fear to convince people to vote for them, and most news media picks a political side and thrives on fear and sensationalization.
In Carl Sagan's book Contact, Dr. Ellie Arroway mathematically proved that Pi, calculated out to some huge number, had a series of 1 and 0 that when arranged in a raster, formed a circle,
Correct! Since Pi has infinitely many digits, and is non-repeating, that means that it has "a series of 1 and 0 that when arranged in a raster, form a circle". In related news, the square root of 2 contains the entire works of Shakespeare (in ASCII format).
Let me explain. Minimum wage directly affects only those employers whose business model depends on low-wage, unskilled labor. But wages can be guaranteed directly by society (via government) instead.
If you divorce the wage received from the person paying the wage, you could end with a situation where people have totally useless jobs, because why not? Let's say your friend hires you for an "experiment" to see how long your computer/TV/chair/couch/bed etc last when being used, for 1 cent per hour. And you hire your friend to do the same with different brands. Now both you and your friend are "working" for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, without producing anything of value, yet getting paid a full wage (and overtime!).
We're now forty years after the first oil shock, and, for lack of a valid alternative, oil still runs 98% of transportation.
How come peak oil isn't listed?
Because while peak oil is a significant annoyance, it isn't a civilization-collapsing problem. We can make liquid or gaseous fuel from coal, or from biomass, or from solar/nuclear/wind via electricity. We aren't doing those because oil is cheaper, not because they're unavailable.
Extreme climate change /karmawhoring>
Nuclear war
Global pandemic
Major asteroid impact
Super volcano
Ecological catastrophe
Global system catastrophe
Synthetic biology
Nanotechnology
Artificial intelligence
Future bad global governance
Unknown consequences
Kind of weak list, IMHO. For example, where is "overpopulation?"
Overpopulation is subdivided into:
Extreme climate change (overpopulation --> too many humans messing with the climate)
Nuclear war (overpopulation --> conflict over scarce resources)
Global pandemic (overpopulation --> breeding grounds for disease)
Ecological catastrophe (overpopulation --> destruction of habitat)
Global system catastrophe (overpopulation --> destruction of habitat/overuse of resources)
Synthetic biology (overpopulation --> need to feed all those people)
Future bad global governance (overpopulation --> need global government to prevent conflict caused by overpopulation)
Unknown consequences (overpopulation --> unknown consequences of overpopulation)
I'll nominate for unknown consequences:
failure to reproduce: technological progress makes it even easier to avoid having children, while providing more interesting things to do than have children. Besides this, current and near future overpopulation cause it to also be considered virtuous not to have children. But as population dwindles, there is more stuff for everyone which further compounds the problem while increasing decadence. Humans saved from extinction by Darwin and/or some "crazy" religious group, but the rest of civilization collapses.
It appears that the banking sector will do what they usually do—extract wealth and destroy jobs.
Aren't they doing that because the government/judicial system decided that bankers get to keep big piles of profits when things go well, and also when things go poorly, and also when things go criminally negligent? When they get bailout money instead of jailtime and personal fines, the incentive is to take the biggest risks since if anything goes wrong the taxpayer will rescue them.
And that has always been what baffles me about this ... how is it even legal?
This isn't a "sign up for something which carries some risk". This is a "you are pretty much 100% guaranteed to die".
What business of yours is it if people are dying for a chance to go to Mars?