The federal government prohibited commercial traffic over any NSF (National Science Foundation) funded network, which at the time included most of the Internet backbones. The "no commercial use" restriction was not repealed until around 1990.
I can build a functional 1911 from a receiver casting in less than 2 hours.
Bullcrap. You can't build a functional 1911 with a 3D printer. You could build one with a CNC mill and lathe, but that would take way more than 2 hours.
False. I got access to the Internet in 1984, when 99.99% of the public had no access, and there were severe restrictions on what you could say or do. Commercial activity was illegal. I got my first domain in 1990, after filing plenty of paper forms and explaining to the US government why I needed it, and what I was going to do with it.
I helped set up an office in Germany in the early 1980s, and we had to go to the post office to get a permit to operate a modem.
This law will have a negligible effect for many reasons:
1. It is addressing a problem that doesn't exist. The main problem faced by restaurants in SF is not "too few customers" but "too few workers", since people making waitress and dishwasher wages can't afford to live in SF. Customers aren't going to just wait longer to be seated. They will instead bring a sandwich and an apple in a paper sack and eat at their desk.
2. It doesn't actually ban "free food at work." . It bans new construction of cafeterias. But SF already rejects 95% of all building permits, and the NIMBYs and BANANAs prevent almost all new construction anyway. Existing cafeterias can still be used, and tech companies without cafeterias can just contract with an offsite caterer to bring in meals. Unlike the cafeteria workers, these caterers are likely to make the meals in Oakland or Daly City, and truck them into SF, so this may reduce jobs for SF residents.
Big Tech mostly does a pretty good job at data security. Small Tech is a bigger concern, and non-Tech (like Equifax, where the CTO had a liberal arts degree) is an even bigger problem.
On the other hand, including a terminator gene sounds like a pretty excellent way to create DRM for plants.
We already have that. Most seeds planted by 1st-world farmers are either GMO or hybrids, and new seed is purchased each year. For most crops, farmers do not save seeds from one year to the next.
3rd-world farmers routinely save seeds for planting, but this leads to far lower productivity. They would be much better off buying hybrid or GMO seeds annually. The higher yields and decreased inputs (insecticide, herbicide, and fertilizer) would way more than make up for the cost of the seeds.
With terminator genes, anyone who wanted to continue to replant traditional/heirloom seeds would still be able to do so, and would actually have more protection, since there would be no risk of inadvertent cross pollination from GMO stocks.
It is absurd that our current law REQUIRES the unwanted spreading of GMO pollen into the wind.
to make sure, for example, pesticide resistance in a crop doesn't get crossed with a wild relative of the crop and spread to a wild population of an undesirable plant.
The OBVIOUS way to ensure this doesn't happen is to edit out the pollen production so that the GMO plant IS NOT CAPABLE OF REPRODUCTION. The gene can't pass to the wild stock if there is nothing being passed.
This is known as a "terminator gene", and the anti-GMO activists vehemently objected to it, and were successful in getting terminator genes banned in both Europe and America.
Why? Answer: Because it removes one of their best objections to GMO. They want to make GMO intentionally MORE RISKY just so that they have stronger objections. They don't want GMO to be safe, they want it to be banned, at any cost.
Name a SINGLE problem that generic 'GMO' causes. Just one.
GMO maize (corn) can be grown without pesticides, thus reducing the profits of insecticide manufacturers.
GMO soybeans are more suited to "no till" farming that reduces erosion and nitrate and phosphate runoff into lakes and rivers. This reduces the profits of fertilizer manufacturers.
GMO "golden" rice contains vitamins that are responsible for reducing blindness in 3rd world children. This reduces the profits of white cane manufacturers, but fortunately for them (but unfortunately for the children), the EU has banned imports from poor countries that grow golden rice.
GMO content is useful for everyone who does not want to buy GMO products.
But what if I don't want to buy food produced by left handed methodists? Why is there no label for that?
How about we allow GMO free food to be voluntarily labeled as such, and get rid of the stupid mandatory labeling requirements based on superstition and scaremongering? This is one thing that America is doing right.
Yes. The power generation uses the potential difference between the level of Lake Mead, and the level of the outlet. If it then flows downhill for an additional 20 miles, no power is generated from that.
Because when you get the medallion you agree to provide service 24/7 in all areas at reasonable fixed prices.
Taxis are under no obligation to provide service 24/7. Nor are they required to "serve all areas". Uber has shown that taxis' "fixed prices" are far above the market price.
The last few times I used Lyft, I clicked on "Shared Ride". The driver picked up other passengers enroute, and I received a 30% discount. By doubling up (or tripling up) passengers, they are reducing congestion more than taxis.
America has the highest incarceration rate in the world. We imprison 4 times as many people per capita as China, Russia, and Iran. We spend the most, yet we have one of the worst recidivism rates.
Unless someone is a physical danger to society, there should be an alternative punishment, such as wearing an ankle tracker while cleaning bedpans at a nursing home for 60 hours per week. We could cut our inmate population by 75%.
It's hyperbole because all the mall has to do is slap a sticker on the directory display...
NO!!! They should NOT do that. If "privacy warnings" get used every time someone walks in front of security camera, then they will soon become as meaningless as the California "cancer warnings" that are displayed anytime you enter a business that has an air conditioner, fax, or printer (i.e.: 100% of them). People will just get inured to them, and they will become meaningless.
Privacy warnings should only be used when there is an actual privacy issue at stake. TFA is stupid.
They're already working on redistributing the wealth.
Crime does not redistribute wealth. It is mostly poor people stealing from other poor people. If a thief steals your wallet, he may get $20 in cash, but cause you hundreds of dollars in time and expense to get new credit cards, apply for a replacement DL, etc. So net wealth is destroyed. High crime neighborhoods have high prices (to make up for the robberies), and low investment in job creation. Poor people spend far more of their disposable income on locks, window bars, and other security measures.
In theory, "separate but equal" wasn't racially biased either. But if the output is racist, then then most people would say that the system is racist.
Race is correlated with criminality. Any AI that isn't specifically designed to exclude that factor will find that correlation and use it to make predictions. We, as a society, have decided that is unacceptable because it doesn't treat people as individuals. So do you fudge the inputs or fudge the outputs? Fudging the inputs is difficult, unlikely to work well, and will diminish the effectiveness of the system. So the only remaining option is to fudge the outputs.
How is it racial profiling? Who's putting race into the prediction models?
Even if race is not explicitly included, it is likely strongly correlated with other inputs, such as zipcodes, neighborhoods, names, prior arrest records, profile of the victim (most crime is intra-racial), etc. Since REALITY is that crime is correlated with race, any "AI" will quickly locate proxies for race in the data.
If we want to eliminate racial bias, it is not effective to modify the inputs. It is better to just modify the outputs by multiplying by a race based fudge factor to make the results politically acceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Who exactly was doing the restricting?
The federal government prohibited commercial traffic over any NSF (National Science Foundation) funded network, which at the time included most of the Internet backbones. The "no commercial use" restriction was not repealed until around 1990.
I can build a functional 1911 from a receiver casting in less than 2 hours.
Bullcrap. You can't build a functional 1911 with a 3D printer. You could build one with a CNC mill and lathe, but that would take way more than 2 hours.
Computing is more walled off than ever before.
False. I got access to the Internet in 1984, when 99.99% of the public had no access, and there were severe restrictions on what you could say or do. Commercial activity was illegal. I got my first domain in 1990, after filing plenty of paper forms and explaining to the US government why I needed it, and what I was going to do with it.
I helped set up an office in Germany in the early 1980s, and we had to go to the post office to get a permit to operate a modem.
This law will have a negligible effect for many reasons:
1. It is addressing a problem that doesn't exist. The main problem faced by restaurants in SF is not "too few customers" but "too few workers", since people making waitress and dishwasher wages can't afford to live in SF. Customers aren't going to just wait longer to be seated. They will instead bring a sandwich and an apple in a paper sack and eat at their desk.
2. It doesn't actually ban "free food at work." . It bans new construction of cafeterias. But SF already rejects 95% of all building permits, and the NIMBYs and BANANAs prevent almost all new construction anyway. Existing cafeterias can still be used, and tech companies without cafeterias can just contract with an offsite caterer to bring in meals. Unlike the cafeteria workers, these caterers are likely to make the meals in Oakland or Daly City, and truck them into SF, so this may reduce jobs for SF residents.
Stupid laws have stupid unintended effects.
They should all have to get to work in rickshaws, too, and buy their shoes from local cobblers.
You are obviously being sarcastic, but if you put your proposal on the ballot, it is likely that many SF voters would support it.
Big Tech mostly does a pretty good job at data security. Small Tech is a bigger concern, and non-Tech (like Equifax, where the CTO had a liberal arts degree) is an even bigger problem.
An example would be to someone that has an allergy.
Labelling for common allergens (milk, eggs, soy, nuts, etc) is already a requirement.
On the other hand, including a terminator gene sounds like a pretty excellent way to create DRM for plants.
We already have that. Most seeds planted by 1st-world farmers are either GMO or hybrids, and new seed is purchased each year. For most crops, farmers do not save seeds from one year to the next.
3rd-world farmers routinely save seeds for planting, but this leads to far lower productivity. They would be much better off buying hybrid or GMO seeds annually. The higher yields and decreased inputs (insecticide, herbicide, and fertilizer) would way more than make up for the cost of the seeds.
With terminator genes, anyone who wanted to continue to replant traditional/heirloom seeds would still be able to do so, and would actually have more protection, since there would be no risk of inadvertent cross pollination from GMO stocks.
It is absurd that our current law REQUIRES the unwanted spreading of GMO pollen into the wind.
to make sure, for example, pesticide resistance in a crop doesn't get crossed with a wild relative of the crop and spread to a wild population of an undesirable plant.
The OBVIOUS way to ensure this doesn't happen is to edit out the pollen production so that the GMO plant IS NOT CAPABLE OF REPRODUCTION. The gene can't pass to the wild stock if there is nothing being passed.
This is known as a "terminator gene", and the anti-GMO activists vehemently objected to it, and were successful in getting terminator genes banned in both Europe and America.
Why? Answer: Because it removes one of their best objections to GMO. They want to make GMO intentionally MORE RISKY just so that they have stronger objections. They don't want GMO to be safe, they want it to be banned, at any cost.
The actions of these idiots are indefensible.
Name a SINGLE problem that generic 'GMO' causes. Just one.
GMO maize (corn) can be grown without pesticides, thus reducing the profits of insecticide manufacturers.
GMO soybeans are more suited to "no till" farming that reduces erosion and nitrate and phosphate runoff into lakes and rivers. This reduces the profits of fertilizer manufacturers.
GMO "golden" rice contains vitamins that are responsible for reducing blindness in 3rd world children. This reduces the profits of white cane manufacturers, but fortunately for them (but unfortunately for the children), the EU has banned imports from poor countries that grow golden rice.
GMO content is useful for everyone who does not want to buy GMO products.
But what if I don't want to buy food produced by left handed methodists? Why is there no label for that?
How about we allow GMO free food to be voluntarily labeled as such, and get rid of the stupid mandatory labeling requirements based on superstition and scaremongering? This is one thing that America is doing right.
What could actually be USEFUL information would be exactly what proteins, etc are present.
How would that be useful to the average consumer?
rather than food that has gone through random mutations
Every single thing you eat has random mutations, whether from background radiation, cosmic rays, viruses, errors during mitosis/meiosis, etc.
What the Europeans are doing is technophobic nonsense, with no basis in science. The courts should not be used to enforce superstitions.
but it does not work that way for patents.
Sometimes it does. Intel is compelled to license some of their patents to AMD by the DoJ as part of an anti-trust consent decree.
Large dams like the Hoover constantly let water through
No. Water flows only during periods of peak power demand.
Is there something I missed here?
Yes. The power generation uses the potential difference between the level of Lake Mead, and the level of the outlet. If it then flows downhill for an additional 20 miles, no power is generated from that.
Because when you get the medallion you agree to provide service 24/7 in all areas at reasonable fixed prices.
Taxis are under no obligation to provide service 24/7. Nor are they required to "serve all areas". Uber has shown that taxis' "fixed prices" are far above the market price.
The last few times I used Lyft, I clicked on "Shared Ride". The driver picked up other passengers enroute, and I received a 30% discount. By doubling up (or tripling up) passengers, they are reducing congestion more than taxis.
America has the highest incarceration rate in the world. We imprison 4 times as many people per capita as China, Russia, and Iran. We spend the most, yet we have one of the worst recidivism rates.
Unless someone is a physical danger to society, there should be an alternative punishment, such as wearing an ankle tracker while cleaning bedpans at a nursing home for 60 hours per week. We could cut our inmate population by 75%.
No internet access at all, not even email. For maximum security prisons, prisoners should get a few minutes a week on a land-line phone.
Nonsense. Social interaction decreases recidivism. It should be encouraged. Nearly all of these people are going to reenter society someday.
It's hyperbole because all the mall has to do is slap a sticker on the directory display ...
NO!!! They should NOT do that. If "privacy warnings" get used every time someone walks in front of security camera, then they will soon become as meaningless as the California "cancer warnings" that are displayed anytime you enter a business that has an air conditioner, fax, or printer (i.e.: 100% of them). People will just get inured to them, and they will become meaningless.
Privacy warnings should only be used when there is an actual privacy issue at stake. TFA is stupid.
They're already working on redistributing the wealth.
Crime does not redistribute wealth. It is mostly poor people stealing from other poor people. If a thief steals your wallet, he may get $20 in cash, but cause you hundreds of dollars in time and expense to get new credit cards, apply for a replacement DL, etc. So net wealth is destroyed. High crime neighborhoods have high prices (to make up for the robberies), and low investment in job creation. Poor people spend far more of their disposable income on locks, window bars, and other security measures.
The algorithm doesn't care about race
In theory, "separate but equal" wasn't racially biased either. But if the output is racist, then then most people would say that the system is racist.
Race is correlated with criminality. Any AI that isn't specifically designed to exclude that factor will find that correlation and use it to make predictions. We, as a society, have decided that is unacceptable because it doesn't treat people as individuals. So do you fudge the inputs or fudge the outputs? Fudging the inputs is difficult, unlikely to work well, and will diminish the effectiveness of the system. So the only remaining option is to fudge the outputs.
Other effective ways of reducing crime are not having the rich live next door to the poor
Not true. Mixed income neighborhoods do not have more crime. The worst crime is in areas with concentrated poverty, where the poor prey on the poor.
How is it racial profiling? Who's putting race into the prediction models?
Even if race is not explicitly included, it is likely strongly correlated with other inputs, such as zipcodes, neighborhoods, names, prior arrest records, profile of the victim (most crime is intra-racial), etc. Since REALITY is that crime is correlated with race, any "AI" will quickly locate proxies for race in the data.
If we want to eliminate racial bias, it is not effective to modify the inputs. It is better to just modify the outputs by multiplying by a race based fudge factor to make the results politically acceptable.