The ship is generally lower than the target, and the earth is a sphere. So a miss will exit the atmosphere and dissipate in space.
Air travel would be a no-go if certain nations had these things.
Commercial aviation tends to avoid war zones. But the risk is infinitesimal anyway. During WW2, 50,000 anti-aircraft rounds were fired for every downed enemy aircraft. These were actually aimed at the aircraft, and many of them had proximity fuses and were area weapons. Even in the extremely unlikely even that this laser hits a commercial aircraft, it needs to be held on target long enough to heat it up, and that is even more unlikely to happen inadvertently.
So you'd rather ban lasers and force armies to stick with bullets,
Throughout history, people have claimed that new more efficient weapons would lead to less killing. Prior to WW1, some people claimed that a future war would have few casualties since a single machine gun could replace 20 soldiers with rifles. It didn't turn out that way.
The best way to keep the peace is to insure that the dominant enforcer of the current world order remains dominant. In 1914, that was Britain, and the challenger was Germany. Today, it is America, and the future challenger may be China.
The reason to ban nuclear weapons is the dangers they pose to places and times far away from and long after the battle.
Another reason that NW could be banned is that a ban could actually be enforceable. Nukes require a lot of infrastructure and emit detectable radiation. With these $1 per shot lasers, there is no way a ban could be enforced. They are dual-use technology, so it would be easy to disguise a weapons program as an industrial or scientific project.
Compared to the same number of people in a car, they're WONDERFUL for the environment.
The average bus has 7 passengers. Two people in a car use less fuel per passenger-mile, and the car doesn't obstruct traffic, doesn't need a paid driver, and gets people where they need to go much sooner.
You'll find hot tech start-ups in the Bay Area with very high churn rates.
Churn is good. New employees bring new ideas and fresh perspectives. Geographic areas with high churn rates have higher productivity rates than areas with more stability/stagnation. Churn-friendliness is one reason that California has been successful despite the high taxes and stifling state bureaucracy.
I have found that the most productive workers are "boomerangs", that leave, work somewhere else for a few years, and then return. They already know the people and culture, and return brimming with ideas of how to fix our processes.
The name "Autopilot" (while great) implies that nothing needs to be done by the driver
I have heard this said many many times by people that all have one thing in common: They don't own a Tesla, and have never driven one. So it doesn't matter if it is misleading to them, since they aren't actually using it. Likewise, it doesn't really matter if you misunderstand what a aircraft autopilot does if you aren't a pilot.
Meanwhile, for those of us that actually drive Teslas, there is no way that we are stupid enough to believe that it is "hands-off" just because of the name. Anyone that uses the system can see that it requires human interaction.
Tax the corporations something insane like 80% of their profits
You would quickly see massive capital flight and job losses, as corporations moved assets overseas. You might think that with enough totalitarian restrictions and secret police survelliance you could stop that, but China has lost $3.8 trillion over the last decade, despite severe capital controls.
Historically, capital controls have been about as effective as grabbing smoke.
Fat and lazy peopel are not a problem, when there aren't any jobs for them to have anyway.
Yet we are in a full employment economy, and the rate of people being replaced by technology is going down, since most the the easy-to-automate manufacturing jobs are already gone, and service jobs are proving much harder to automate.
UBI is a solution to a theoretical problem that doesn't actually exist.
Of course, one solution to this problem is to make security breaches or other software failures that cause serious harm to third parties extremely expensive
Draconian punishment has a poor record of effectiveness. We used to execute people for stealing bread, yet people still stole bread.
Additional costs will be passed on to consumers, who are unwilling to pay for it. It will also eliminate free software, since no one will be willing to accept the liability. Progress will slow to a crawl, as new releases are held up for review after review, likely making security worse.
You seem to be fixated on "online security" as some existential crisis threatening the future of humanity, but very few other people see it that way. If you picked a thousand people at random, and had them list the 10 biggest problems in their lives, I doubt if any of them would list "online security breaches". Yet you expect these people to pay much more to mitigate the threat.
What needs to happen is the cost of security breaches must greatly exceed the cost
Why does that "need" to happen? If there was actually a "need" for secure and expensive software the marketplace would already be providing it. Most people want cheap, or even better, free. There is no political demand for an authoritarian solution to online security, nor should there be. Government involvement will stifle innovation, increase costs, and do little to actually solve the problem.
But it's not copyright infrimgement. It's paying agreed charges when the charges weren't well thought out by RIAA when they were set before YouTube was conceived.
Can you provide a citation for this? I have never heard this before, and TFA says nothing about any pre-existing agreement, which leads me to believe that you just made it up.
If you want to correspond with (or sue) someone off the grid in bfe.
If the postal service is privatized, FCM will not go away, it will just not be cross subsidized. If you want to live (or correspond with) BFE, no one else should be required to subsidize your choice.
Legal process service does not go through first class mail.
Capitalism doesn't work that way. For remote locations there is no incentive for UPS/FedEx to provide duplicate delivery against a competitor delivering below cost (urban and suburban postal customers subsidize rural customers). But once the USPS was gone, they would offer services. These would, of course, be more expensive than USPS, because the cross subsidies would be gone. But that is a good thing. There is no rational reason that one group of citizens should subsidize the lifestyle choice of another group.
To make people READ, set it up so blindly clicking 'next' just fails.
Plenty of sites already do that. They require people to load the text, scroll to the end, and then click. People still don't read it. I know I don't. Why should I? Click-through contracts are not enforceable other than the implied contract that would be just as enforceable without the clicking.
Do you really think the ISP in the summary would be able to use the courts to force people to clean sewers? Of course not. There are no legal repercussions for just blindly clicking, nor should there be.
There is no rational reason that costs should be allocated equally across all classes of mail. Delivery of first class mail is the whole point of the USPS, and it is illegal for private companies to provide an equivalent service. If not for first class mail, there would be no reason to even have a post office, since there are already private alternatives for all other classes of mail. So it makes sense for FCM to bear the brunt of infrastructure costs.
Disclaimer: I believe that the historical need for FCM is obsolete and the USPS should be fully privatized. Packages should be delivered by UPS and FedEx, bills should go by email, bulk mail advertising should disappear forever.
For these application you can only do supervised learning
Not true. An ANN can learn a lot from unlabeled data. Enough to spot anomalies, although not enough to make a specific diagnosis. So you combine a lot of pretraining with unlabeled data, with fine tuning using human annotated images.
I think you're STILL going to want to have human Radiologist Dr's backing up what likely will be initial AI readings of the films....
Sure, for legal reasons, not technical reasons.
Not to mention, what happens when the computers crash
Computers can reboot in seconds, or at most a few minutes. According to TFA, humans take 45 minutes to read a scan. So the computer can crash and reboot a dozen times and still beat a human.
Surely we'll have deployed mosquito-killing-laser-firing robots by then.
We already have mosquito killing laser firing robots but so far the cost is too high and the range too low for wide deployment. The projected use is for defense of high value targets, such as clinics and hospitals, rather than wide area denial.
In many areas mosquitoes are invasive species. For instance, mosquitoes are not native to the Hawaiian Islands, and they are a threat to many native bird species and plants that have no evolutionary adaptation to mosquitoes. So these birds and plants are more susceptible to being replaced by other invasive species that can better tolerate mosquitoes.
Wiping out mosquitoes in Hawaii would be an unqualified good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
What if you miss?
The ship is generally lower than the target, and the earth is a sphere. So a miss will exit the atmosphere and dissipate in space.
Air travel would be a no-go if certain nations had these things.
Commercial aviation tends to avoid war zones. But the risk is infinitesimal anyway. During WW2, 50,000 anti-aircraft rounds were fired for every downed enemy aircraft. These were actually aimed at the aircraft, and many of them had proximity fuses and were area weapons. Even in the extremely unlikely even that this laser hits a commercial aircraft, it needs to be held on target long enough to heat it up, and that is even more unlikely to happen inadvertently.
So you'd rather ban lasers and force armies to stick with bullets,
Throughout history, people have claimed that new more efficient weapons would lead to less killing. Prior to WW1, some people claimed that a future war would have few casualties since a single machine gun could replace 20 soldiers with rifles. It didn't turn out that way.
The best way to keep the peace is to insure that the dominant enforcer of the current world order remains dominant. In 1914, that was Britain, and the challenger was Germany. Today, it is America, and the future challenger may be China.
The reason to ban nuclear weapons is the dangers they pose to places and times far away from and long after the battle.
Another reason that NW could be banned is that a ban could actually be enforceable. Nukes require a lot of infrastructure and emit detectable radiation. With these $1 per shot lasers, there is no way a ban could be enforced. They are dual-use technology, so it would be easy to disguise a weapons program as an industrial or scientific project.
5. There really is a backdoor.
Compared to the same number of people in a car, they're WONDERFUL for the environment.
The average bus has 7 passengers. Two people in a car use less fuel per passenger-mile, and the car doesn't obstruct traffic, doesn't need a paid driver, and gets people where they need to go much sooner.
Also by manufacturers of bicycles costing $199, and for tire companies specializing in 25.5" and smaller.
You'll find hot tech start-ups in the Bay Area with very high churn rates.
Churn is good. New employees bring new ideas and fresh perspectives. Geographic areas with high churn rates have higher productivity rates than areas with more stability/stagnation. Churn-friendliness is one reason that California has been successful despite the high taxes and stifling state bureaucracy.
I have found that the most productive workers are "boomerangs", that leave, work somewhere else for a few years, and then return. They already know the people and culture, and return brimming with ideas of how to fix our processes.
The name "Autopilot" (while great) implies that nothing needs to be done by the driver
I have heard this said many many times by people that all have one thing in common: They don't own a Tesla, and have never driven one. So it doesn't matter if it is misleading to them, since they aren't actually using it. Likewise, it doesn't really matter if you misunderstand what a aircraft autopilot does if you aren't a pilot.
Meanwhile, for those of us that actually drive Teslas, there is no way that we are stupid enough to believe that it is "hands-off" just because of the name. Anyone that uses the system can see that it requires human interaction.
Tax the corporations something insane like 80% of their profits
You would quickly see massive capital flight and job losses, as corporations moved assets overseas. You might think that with enough totalitarian restrictions and secret police survelliance you could stop that, but China has lost $3.8 trillion over the last decade, despite severe capital controls.
Historically, capital controls have been about as effective as grabbing smoke.
Fat and lazy peopel are not a problem, when there aren't any jobs for them to have anyway.
Yet we are in a full employment economy, and the rate of people being replaced by technology is going down, since most the the easy-to-automate manufacturing jobs are already gone, and service jobs are proving much harder to automate.
UBI is a solution to a theoretical problem that doesn't actually exist.
Of course, one solution to this problem is to make security breaches or other software failures that cause serious harm to third parties extremely expensive
Draconian punishment has a poor record of effectiveness. We used to execute people for stealing bread, yet people still stole bread.
Additional costs will be passed on to consumers, who are unwilling to pay for it. It will also eliminate free software, since no one will be willing to accept the liability. Progress will slow to a crawl, as new releases are held up for review after review, likely making security worse.
You seem to be fixated on "online security" as some existential crisis threatening the future of humanity, but very few other people see it that way. If you picked a thousand people at random, and had them list the 10 biggest problems in their lives, I doubt if any of them would list "online security breaches". Yet you expect these people to pay much more to mitigate the threat.
How is a pro wrestler having sex and making rude comments newsworthy?
The 1st Amendment says nothing about "newsworthiness".
It serves no purpose in public discourse
Speech does not have to "serve a purpose" or contribute to "public discourse" to be protected.
Gawker lost because they violated Hogan's privacy rights by using a surreptitiously recorded tape, which was an illegal recording.
What needs to happen is the cost of security breaches must greatly exceed the cost
Why does that "need" to happen? If there was actually a "need" for secure and expensive software the marketplace would already be providing it. Most people want cheap, or even better, free. There is no political demand for an authoritarian solution to online security, nor should there be. Government involvement will stifle innovation, increase costs, and do little to actually solve the problem.
Free, no...
Paid, yes...
Ashley Madison = free sex
Seekingarrangements.com = paid sex
But it's not copyright infrimgement. It's paying agreed charges when the charges weren't well thought out by RIAA when they were set before YouTube was conceived.
Can you provide a citation for this? I have never heard this before, and TFA says nothing about any pre-existing agreement, which leads me to believe that you just made it up.
Someone has to grow your food, dummy.
You should pay for your food at the grocery store, not the post office.
There's a reason a purely capitalist system is as much a pipe dream as full-on Communism.
Countries with full-on communism: Cuba, North Korea
Countries with privatized post offices: Denmark, Sweden, Germany
Not really equivalent.
If you want to correspond with (or sue) someone off the grid in bfe.
If the postal service is privatized, FCM will not go away, it will just not be cross subsidized. If you want to live (or correspond with) BFE, no one else should be required to subsidize your choice.
Legal process service does not go through first class mail.
No USPS, no deliveries to those locations.
Capitalism doesn't work that way. For remote locations there is no incentive for UPS/FedEx to provide duplicate delivery against a competitor delivering below cost (urban and suburban postal customers subsidize rural customers). But once the USPS was gone, they would offer services. These would, of course, be more expensive than USPS, because the cross subsidies would be gone. But that is a good thing. There is no rational reason that one group of citizens should subsidize the lifestyle choice of another group.
To make people READ, set it up so blindly clicking 'next' just fails.
Plenty of sites already do that. They require people to load the text, scroll to the end, and then click. People still don't read it. I know I don't. Why should I? Click-through contracts are not enforceable other than the implied contract that would be just as enforceable without the clicking.
Do you really think the ISP in the summary would be able to use the courts to force people to clean sewers? Of course not. There are no legal repercussions for just blindly clicking, nor should there be.
Can anyone cite an example of a "click-through" contract being enforced in a court of law?
There is no rational reason that costs should be allocated equally across all classes of mail. Delivery of first class mail is the whole point of the USPS, and it is illegal for private companies to provide an equivalent service. If not for first class mail, there would be no reason to even have a post office, since there are already private alternatives for all other classes of mail. So it makes sense for FCM to bear the brunt of infrastructure costs.
Disclaimer: I believe that the historical need for FCM is obsolete and the USPS should be fully privatized. Packages should be delivered by UPS and FedEx, bills should go by email, bulk mail advertising should disappear forever.
For these application you can only do supervised learning
Not true. An ANN can learn a lot from unlabeled data. Enough to spot anomalies, although not enough to make a specific diagnosis. So you combine a lot of pretraining with unlabeled data, with fine tuning using human annotated images.
I think you're STILL going to want to have human Radiologist Dr's backing up what likely will be initial AI readings of the films....
Sure, for legal reasons, not technical reasons.
Not to mention, what happens when the computers crash
Computers can reboot in seconds, or at most a few minutes. According to TFA, humans take 45 minutes to read a scan. So the computer can crash and reboot a dozen times and still beat a human.
Surely we'll have deployed mosquito-killing-laser-firing robots by then.
We already have mosquito killing laser firing robots but so far the cost is too high and the range too low for wide deployment. The projected use is for defense of high value targets, such as clinics and hospitals, rather than wide area denial.
In many areas mosquitoes are invasive species. For instance, mosquitoes are not native to the Hawaiian Islands, and they are a threat to many native bird species and plants that have no evolutionary adaptation to mosquitoes. So these birds and plants are more susceptible to being replaced by other invasive species that can better tolerate mosquitoes.
Wiping out mosquitoes in Hawaii would be an unqualified good thing.