Half of them even deny basic science such as evolution and greenhouse effect of CO2.
That is because the focus groups tell them this is what they need to do to win the election. Politicians at the national level are very smart people. They would not get to that level if they were not. Bill Clinton has an IQ of 160, but he talked like a hick because he knew people would not vote for a pointy headed intellectual.
Paris Hilton earns millions annually through TV, product endorsements, and her own brands. She has a net worth of over $100 million. Less than $5M of that came from her inheritance. She manages and invests her money well. I don't think she is as dumb as you think she is.
The children of elites tend to have parents who care about scholastics, which is far and away the most accurate predictor of scholastic success
No. This is wrong. The most accurate predictors of scholastic success are 1) IQ of the child's biological parents, and 2) Household income. Having "parents that care" makes no measureable difference once you compensate for IQ and income. What the parents do matters far less than who the parents are.
No negotiation on salary basically means they are bottom feeders.
Did you look at their salary levels? In the SF area, they are offering $122k to entry level programmers. That is not "bottom feeding". It is ridiculously high. My company (San Jose) offers fresh "BS in CS" grads between $80-100k, and we have no problem getting people from SJSU or even Berkeley. Their problem is on the high end. As that employee goes from beginner to intermediate to advanced, their salary only goes up by $20k. That is a pittance. In the SF Bay Area, there is no way you are going to hang on to good experienced people for $145k.
Something tells me I'd either be very happy with my starting salary, or very unhappy with my "master" salary...
Indeed. For entry level, the salary levels look fantastic. But then there is little increase. So as time goes by, their most productive employees will leave and go to where they are paid what they are worth. If salary transparency was a panacea, then the government, where salary levels are public, would be the most efficient organization.
The Fermi Paradox only applies to civilizations in our own galaxy, not to events happening billions of LYs away. There are plausible explanations for why civilizations might be rare in our own galaxy, yet common in other galaxies. For instance, a hypernova about 4 billion years ago may have sterilized much of the Milky Way, exterminating life on many planets that could have gone on to evolve intelligent beings.
Occam's Razor encourages us to look for more ordinary explanations first.
Occam's Razor is a good rule of thumb for respectable scientific hypotheses, not for speculative conjectures on Slashdot.
Are they going to clarify why a background check is required for people to test the security of their systems?
Because fewer and less qualified hackers will make it much easier to pass the test and declare their systems secure.
If you ever worked for the government, you would understand exactly how this situation arose. There is a committee (there is always a committee). Some members liked the idea of the bounty, and others opposed it. So instead of making a clear decision, they compromised, and passed a resolution to offer the bounty, but with so many restrictions and exclusions that it was essentially meaningless. That way, everyone can take credit if there are no breaches in the future, and everyone can disavow responsibility if there is an intrusion.
To fix this we need to fix the US election system.
One solution is to use non-partisan open primaries, and then make the general election a run-off between the top two. This also eliminates the Spoiler Effect. Unfortunately, open primaries are unconstitutional.
It's interesting because I know 0% of democrats will vote for Trump
Don't be so sure. Trump is a political chameleon, and on economic issues he is more of a left-wing populist than right wing. On trade, entitlements, etc. he is closer to Bernie Sanders than to the Republican mainstream. His supporters care less about what he says, and more about how he says it. So far, he has paid no consequences for flip-flopping, so he is free to adjust his positions to anything that appeals to the general electorate. If Hillary stumbles (or is indicted), she could easily lose.
Everybody but you thinks the U.S. economy is 70% larger than the Chinese economy.
The US economy is bigger is you compare using current exchange rates. If you instead use PPP, then China's economy is bigger. In many ways, PPP is a more meaningful comparison.
The Koch Brothers will never permit renewables to overtake oil.
Turn on the TV and watch the news. The Kochs exercise their influence through the Republican Party establishment, which is in the process of being shredded by Donald Trump. The Republicans have thrived by building a coalition of social conservatives, who tend to be less educated middle class people, and economic conservatives that mostly do not share their interests, but control the political establishment. That coalition is collapsing. Trump doesn't give a crap about the establishment. In the general election, where he is almost certainly headed, he is going to hit Hillary from the right with social populism, and from the left with economic populism. As one pundit put it, Hillary's political machine is like a super-tanker... that is about to be boarded by Somali pirates.
Donald may lose in November, but the Republican Party is going to be changed forever. Trump has shown that he can win without the party establishment, and that rank-and-file Republicans will vote for somebody that speaks their language and channels their anger, rather than someone that shares their ideology. Even this year, this change will have a big effect down-ballot, in house and senate races. The influence of people like the Koch brothers is fading. Their money certainly didn't do much to help Jeb Bush.
So if you drive 10000 miles a year, that means there will be one mile a year when your car has no idea what it's doing.
Correct. When you turn off the hard surface road, onto a dirt road overgrown with weeds, your SDC may stop and suggest that you take over and drive manually. That may be inconvenient, but it is not unsafe.
Right... add a few snowflakes and suddenly the computer has no idea which way is up.
That was true of the Google algorithms from several years ago. It is not true today. Tesla Autopilot has no problem recognizing lanes in the snow. In addition to cameras and other sensors, it also has a route database from hundreds or thousands of other cars that have driven the same road.
The technology is just not ready yet. It will get there eventually
SDCs have already driven millions of miles on public roads, and have a far better safety record than human drivers. They are not perfect, but perfection is a ridiculous standard. They just have to be better than human drivers. That is not a high bar.
1. Response time is only a small part of the equation.
Actually, response time is a pretty big part of the equation. Even a one second faster response can avoid many accidents, and greatly reduce the severity of others. Only situational awareness is more important, and computers win there too.
Even modern airline pilots don't like the idea of not having overrides on their planes.
You should not draw deep conclusions from people that have a financial interest in their opinions. Of course pilots don't think they should be replaced with software. That doesn't really say anything out the merits of the idea.
the cheapest way to store the oxygen so you can use it later is to not store it, releasing it into the atmosphere, and later just use "air" for the reaction.:-)
Not when you consider the total cost. Air is about 78% Nitrogen, which leads to a lot of inefficiency. Most engines will run much more efficiently with straight O2, or even O2 and some other substance such as injected water. Coal burning power plants that do carbon sequestration use air stripped of N2 so they don't have to separate the CO2 from the N2 in the exhaust. Nitrogen in a combustion chamber also leads to a lot of nasty pollutants that are difficult and expensive to remove. If you are producing pure O2, just venting it into the air is a big waste.
No. This is wrong. The Concorde never even came close to being profitable. It received $8000 per passenger-trip in subsidies from British and French taxpayers. But as the costs continued to climb, even that wasn't enough, and the politicians decided that there was actually a limit on how much they were willing to tax poor and middle class people in order to subsidize filthy rich Concorde passengers.
I think the automation that's coming will bring disruption...
Automation isn't "coming". It is here. Now. We have millions of robots and billions of computers. Yet the sky is not falling. In the last decade, more than a billion people have risen out of abject poverty, mostly due to jobs enabled by better technology. If you really believed that automation causes impoverishment, then you should also believe that people will do worst in places where automation is common (America, Japan, Europe) and do best in places that avoid automation (Ethiopia, Afghanistan). I hope I don't need to tell you that this is the exact opposite of reality.
People we just don't need and have no particular desire to support.
Did any of your economic readings include Thomas Malthus? He made the exact same prediction 200 years ago, for basically the same reasons. The only difference between you and him, is that you are ignoring an additional 200 years of contrary evidence.
From my spare time reading about economic fallacies, I seem to recall these situations being what revolutions are made of.
Can you provide an example? In the late 18th century, Britain was rapidly automating. But they didn't have a revolution, France did. In 1917, Russia had the most backward economy in Europe. In 1949, China was not over-industrialized.
Slashdot Mirror
Half of them even deny basic science such as evolution and greenhouse effect of CO2.
That is because the focus groups tell them this is what they need to do to win the election. Politicians at the national level are very smart people. They would not get to that level if they were not. Bill Clinton has an IQ of 160, but he talked like a hick because he knew people would not vote for a pointy headed intellectual.
Paris Hilton earns millions annually through TV, product endorsements, and her own brands. She has a net worth of over $100 million. Less than $5M of that came from her inheritance. She manages and invests her money well. I don't think she is as dumb as you think she is.
The children of elites tend to have parents who care about scholastics, which is far and away the most accurate predictor of scholastic success
No. This is wrong. The most accurate predictors of scholastic success are 1) IQ of the child's biological parents, and 2) Household income. Having "parents that care" makes no measureable difference once you compensate for IQ and income. What the parents do matters far less than who the parents are.
Families need $200,000 to live comfortably in S.F..
Simple solution: Live in Oakland, and take BART to work.
Another solution: If you make $100k, live with a partner that also makes $100k.
No negotiation on salary basically means they are bottom feeders.
Did you look at their salary levels? In the SF area, they are offering $122k to entry level programmers. That is not "bottom feeding". It is ridiculously high. My company (San Jose) offers fresh "BS in CS" grads between $80-100k, and we have no problem getting people from SJSU or even Berkeley. Their problem is on the high end. As that employee goes from beginner to intermediate to advanced, their salary only goes up by $20k. That is a pittance. In the SF Bay Area, there is no way you are going to hang on to good experienced people for $145k.
Something tells me I'd either be very happy with my starting salary, or very unhappy with my "master" salary...
Indeed. For entry level, the salary levels look fantastic. But then there is little increase. So as time goes by, their most productive employees will leave and go to where they are paid what they are worth. If salary transparency was a panacea, then the government, where salary levels are public, would be the most efficient organization.
There are varying degrees of "lossy"
Yes, there are. But there is only ONE degree of lossless. Just like there are an infinite number of positive numbers, but only one zero.
They will probably move most of the positions to India, Brazil, Hungary, where-ever ...
IBM has had a strong presence in India for more than 30 years. Global companies hire globally. Get over it.
The Fermi Paradox pokes some pretty large holes in your theory.
The Fermi Paradox only applies to civilizations in our own galaxy, not to events happening billions of LYs away. There are plausible explanations for why civilizations might be rare in our own galaxy, yet common in other galaxies. For instance, a hypernova about 4 billion years ago may have sterilized much of the Milky Way, exterminating life on many planets that could have gone on to evolve intelligent beings.
Occam's Razor encourages us to look for more ordinary explanations first.
Occam's Razor is a good rule of thumb for respectable scientific hypotheses, not for speculative conjectures on Slashdot.
Are they going to clarify why a background check is required for people to test the security of their systems?
Because fewer and less qualified hackers will make it much easier to pass the test and declare their systems secure.
If you ever worked for the government, you would understand exactly how this situation arose. There is a committee (there is always a committee). Some members liked the idea of the bounty, and others opposed it. So instead of making a clear decision, they compromised, and passed a resolution to offer the bounty, but with so many restrictions and exclusions that it was essentially meaningless. That way, everyone can take credit if there are no breaches in the future, and everyone can disavow responsibility if there is an intrusion.
To fix this we need to fix the US election system.
One solution is to use non-partisan open primaries, and then make the general election a run-off between the top two. This also eliminates the Spoiler Effect. Unfortunately, open primaries are unconstitutional.
It's interesting because I know 0% of democrats will vote for Trump
Don't be so sure. Trump is a political chameleon, and on economic issues he is more of a left-wing populist than right wing. On trade, entitlements, etc. he is closer to Bernie Sanders than to the Republican mainstream. His supporters care less about what he says, and more about how he says it. So far, he has paid no consequences for flip-flopping, so he is free to adjust his positions to anything that appeals to the general electorate. If Hillary stumbles (or is indicted), she could easily lose.
Everybody but you thinks the U.S. economy is 70% larger than the Chinese economy.
The US economy is bigger is you compare using current exchange rates. If you instead use PPP, then China's economy is bigger. In many ways, PPP is a more meaningful comparison.
The Koch Brothers will never permit renewables to overtake oil.
Turn on the TV and watch the news. The Kochs exercise their influence through the Republican Party establishment, which is in the process of being shredded by Donald Trump. The Republicans have thrived by building a coalition of social conservatives, who tend to be less educated middle class people, and economic conservatives that mostly do not share their interests, but control the political establishment. That coalition is collapsing. Trump doesn't give a crap about the establishment. In the general election, where he is almost certainly headed, he is going to hit Hillary from the right with social populism, and from the left with economic populism. As one pundit put it, Hillary's political machine is like a super-tanker ... that is about to be boarded by Somali pirates.
Donald may lose in November, but the Republican Party is going to be changed forever. Trump has shown that he can win without the party establishment, and that rank-and-file Republicans will vote for somebody that speaks their language and channels their anger, rather than someone that shares their ideology. Even this year, this change will have a big effect down-ballot, in house and senate races. The influence of people like the Koch brothers is fading. Their money certainly didn't do much to help Jeb Bush.
So if you drive 10000 miles a year, that means there will be one mile a year when your car has no idea what it's doing.
Correct. When you turn off the hard surface road, onto a dirt road overgrown with weeds, your SDC may stop and suggest that you take over and drive manually. That may be inconvenient, but it is not unsafe.
Then there are the legitimate political concerns once control of the vehicle is removed from the owner and placed in government/corporate hands.
Control of elevators is already in government/corporate hands. What makes horizontal motion different from vertical? Or do you always use the stairs?
Right... add a few snowflakes and suddenly the computer has no idea which way is up.
That was true of the Google algorithms from several years ago. It is not true today. Tesla Autopilot has no problem recognizing lanes in the snow. In addition to cameras and other sensors, it also has a route database from hundreds or thousands of other cars that have driven the same road.
The technology is just not ready yet. It will get there eventually
SDCs have already driven millions of miles on public roads, and have a far better safety record than human drivers. They are not perfect, but perfection is a ridiculous standard. They just have to be better than human drivers. That is not a high bar.
1. Response time is only a small part of the equation.
Actually, response time is a pretty big part of the equation. Even a one second faster response can avoid many accidents, and greatly reduce the severity of others. Only situational awareness is more important, and computers win there too.
Even modern airline pilots don't like the idea of not having overrides on their planes.
You should not draw deep conclusions from people that have a financial interest in their opinions. Of course pilots don't think they should be replaced with software. That doesn't really say anything out the merits of the idea.
portable products are also fairly limited by available surface area
A flexible panel can be rolled up and stuffed in a backpack, and then unrolled to charge a phone or tablet.
No, but you can get yourself out by looking for those legally required "EXIT->" signs
Studies have shown that, in an emergency, people will follow the EXIT signs even when they are wrong.
the cheapest way to store the oxygen so you can use it later is to not store it, releasing it into the atmosphere, and later just use "air" for the reaction. :-)
Not when you consider the total cost. Air is about 78% Nitrogen, which leads to a lot of inefficiency. Most engines will run much more efficiently with straight O2, or even O2 and some other substance such as injected water. Coal burning power plants that do carbon sequestration use air stripped of N2 so they don't have to separate the CO2 from the N2 in the exhaust. Nitrogen in a combustion chamber also leads to a lot of nasty pollutants that are difficult and expensive to remove. If you are producing pure O2, just venting it into the air is a big waste.
Concorde operated profitably for quite some time.
No. This is wrong. The Concorde never even came close to being profitable. It received $8000 per passenger-trip in subsidies from British and French taxpayers. But as the costs continued to climb, even that wasn't enough, and the politicians decided that there was actually a limit on how much they were willing to tax poor and middle class people in order to subsidize filthy rich Concorde passengers.
Thanks for posting this Donald. I am a big fan, and you will be getting my vote on Super Tuesday.
I think the automation that's coming will bring disruption ...
Automation isn't "coming". It is here. Now. We have millions of robots and billions of computers. Yet the sky is not falling. In the last decade, more than a billion people have risen out of abject poverty, mostly due to jobs enabled by better technology. If you really believed that automation causes impoverishment, then you should also believe that people will do worst in places where automation is common (America, Japan, Europe) and do best in places that avoid automation (Ethiopia, Afghanistan). I hope I don't need to tell you that this is the exact opposite of reality.
People we just don't need and have no particular desire to support.
Did any of your economic readings include Thomas Malthus? He made the exact same prediction 200 years ago, for basically the same reasons. The only difference between you and him, is that you are ignoring an additional 200 years of contrary evidence.
From my spare time reading about economic fallacies, I seem to recall these situations being what revolutions are made of.
Can you provide an example? In the late 18th century, Britain was rapidly automating. But they didn't have a revolution, France did. In 1917, Russia had the most backward economy in Europe. In 1949, China was not over-industrialized.