No a bus doesn't hold 30 people at most, it holds as many as you can pack in there like sardines. I've lived in NYC and Warsaw, Poland where the buses and trains are regularly packed to the point of that being an annoyance in its own. I have yet to see any other system at similar capacity in the US, as to put it bluntly people in the US do not use public transportation. Most system may "look" good but are utterly worthless for full time use or except for travel between certain area. So saying that it's well used for a US bus system isn't saying much to be honest.
Also buses aren't the only form of public transit; railed systems of various sorts (light rail, trolleys, trains) are probably much more efficient (in both time and fuel).
*shrug* For me the difference would be (not sure, no car to actually test it with) more like 20-25 minutes by car and 1.5 hours by public transportation. That doesn't take into account that public transportation limits me to leaving at certain times. To get to work I need to at best:
-Take bus to train station (or bike): 10 minutes -Wait: 10-15 minutes -Take train to light rail station: 10 minutes -Wait: 10 minutes -Take company shuttle to work: 15 minutes
If I'm less than lucky it's:
-Take bus to train station (or bike): 10 minutes -Wait: 10-15 minutes -Take train to light rail station: 10 minutes -Wait: 10 minutes -Take light rail: 20 minutes -Wait: 10 minutes -Take company shuttle to work: 5 minutes
I once had to wait an hour due to bad timing on my part, to be honest it's the fucking juggling of time schedules that I hate the most. Note the very nice and fast train which isn't so nice once you need to get to/from the train station.
Also, the frequency of a traffic jam during rush hour versus problems with the train clearly favours the train rider.
I can go to work anytime I want between 7am and 10:30am basically, meaning that traffic jams would hardly be a problem.
Actually the US rate of consumption increase is about 2% per annum, a bit more precise than "the last few decades", this is in line with population growth. Source : http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc _nus_mbblpd_a.htm I also said current rates of consumption so my original statement did factor this in.
The current rate and expected future usage are not the same thing, it's amusing that you think so. Anyway a lot of sources disagree with you and claim that at the expected rate of consumption (note my mention of China and India, not to mention places like the former USSR) we will hit an oil shortage within the next 50 or so years.
Really and what does a conventional generator do when all this winderful fee energy is being generated? Exactly the same as it does when it is not i.e. they keep on running. Net reduction in Co2 emissions? Nill. You cannot switch a generator on or off like a light, they take time and effort to spin up. In fact the net effect is to increase carbon in atmosphere due to the production of cabling and equipment for renewable generation.
The conventional generators are running at the time but overall you need less of them (note that during peak demand during the summer there is likely to be a lot of nice sunlight to use but not during other periods). Not to mention that there is some economic flexibility in power usage, if you can expect (over the whole grid and such) there to be more power at certain time you can lower the price at those times (this in turn will drive demand up somewhat during that time).
The significance of the Dutch abandoning the expansion of it's wind turbine program is that they cannot get the strategy to work. The have an open western seaboard with pissibly the best laminar airflow you can get and they still cannot get it to work. That is a reasoned and sentient argument, understood by intelligent people, something which you obviously struggle with.
No, I simply am not stupid enough to make wild conclusions from a simple statement. See, I'd actually go and read WHY they're no longer expanding not just jump to random conclusions.
I am an accredited engineer and you obviously fuck pigs for a living.
Oh, did I touch a nerve there Mr. Engineer? That's like the most worthless example of "I know this area" that I've heard in a while. I know a lot of electrical engineers, and most know very little about this area as they've had no training or experience in it.
There is enough known resource to last for 200 years at current rates of consumption.
The world oil consumption is not constant, the US alone has doubled it's oil consumption in the last few decades. Europe has stayed the same but with India and China entering the game that won't matter much probably.
As for wind and sun as sources of electrical power, can I ask what we do when it is dark? Or there is no wind blowing?
Amazingly enough many people can consider using *gasp* multiple sources of electricity production, what a fucking amazing concept, no? Here's a hint: blackouts and summer heat waves, plenty of sun during that peak usage.
These are lovely ideas but if wind was any damn good the Dutch would still be using it, but they have stopped further wind turbine installations....there could be hundreds of reasons for them to stop, none having anything to do with how viable it is. Only an utter moron would consider that sentence to be any sort of argument at all on it's own.
It is time for real engineers to make the decisions on how we proceed and not unqualified "experts" of which there appears to be an almost limitless resource.
So exactly why are you posting an argument anyway, shouldn't you heed your own advice and stfu?
An economy car uses LESS energhy, and pollutes less then any public transportation.
And oddly enough 20 times as many people use that public transportation so it pollutes less (not to mention that electricity apparently is less polluting to produce than gasoline is to burn even by coal power plants).
BS, in 95%+ of the US the public transportation system is SHIT. Grocery shopping is a giant PITA for me if nothing else. The only reason I can even sanely take public transportation to work is because my company provides free employ shuttle to the train station. Otherwise it'd take me well over 2 hours to go the 12 miles to work, even with all that it takes between 1 and 1.5 hours to get to work. Hell, I've biked 6 miles back (lived closer) a few times because I realized that it'd be faster than public transportation. Note that even at best I still needed to bike to the train station (or walk for 25 minutes) as no bus came near my house then. If I need to stay late the only way I can get home in under 2.5 hours is if I bring my bike with me (I'm not even sure a bus runs that late meaning I'd have to walk 35 minutes to the train station). All of this is decidedly not fun during a CA heat wave or right now during the lovely cold bay area nights.
In most places the blind can be locked up in their homes and have food delivered as well, I guess we can ban their dogs from grocery stores as well since they don't need to be there. The point is that certain groups in the US consider hunting to be a required part of being in their society or community. Probably a bonding thing like football, computer games or some such.
The point of various disability laws isn't to make sure the disabled person marginally survives and doesn't starve to death but to allow them to be part of society. You know, to lead as normal a life as society is capable of helping them live and all that.
Crossovers don't usually create anything "new" but simply mix up existing traits and information. So while crossovers introduce variance into the population and help new genes spread their influence is limited. At best they'll give you a good set of genes but you're still limited to what you started with. Mutations on the other hand introduce new genes which may (or may not) have a beneficial effect.
A bunch of these are probably for school credit or even for a class (I think Stanford made it its own class but I'm too lazy to check the course guide). Furthermore the top teams are mainly grad students, probably ones who are doing specializing in robotics and likewise for credit (I think the Stanford team had one undergrad and he wasn't allowed to do much important stuff). In other words for them this is much better than the coursework which they've potentially already maxed out.
Also in terms of employment this is probably quite helpful even for undergrads not going into robotics, the connections you can probably make are worth more than any GPA. In 10 years your GPA won't matter squat but being able to send your resume directly to some high up manager of a company will be worth just as much. And for Grad school this will be even better, especially if your adviser is well known and writes you a kick ass recommendation letter due to it.
Yes because everyone will just love spending 5 minutes restoring their running programs and open documents...
Sorry to break it to you but boot is the smallest part of what it takes to get up and running. God knows I could boot faster than it takes me to get out of hibernate on my laptop (on average counting time to fix whatever fails to work) but getting everything open again would take forever.
As for saving power, we already have tons of power saving options in computer: Monitors go to sleep, computers go to sleep, hard drive turn off and so on. Heck, if you want to save even more power you can have it hibernate which is also nice for dual booting.
No, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. The point of this is not to be so easy that 5 teams win the first time but to be challenging, with an assumption that likely no one will win the first time (or second, or third even, etc.). And yes, NYC is so much like driving through a fake city where the other drivers are all professionals with most likely very well reinforced cars. Hey, let's ban Nascar as well since it's probably 100 times as dangerous to human life as this ever will be.
Christianity is simply the belief that God created everything and created man with free will. After warning us not to commit a specific sin, man chose to sin with that free will, and with that sin came consequense: death. Across history, man has tried to appease God with sacrifices, but man was never able to gain God's grace because left to his own devices, man continues to sin. (And yes, believe it or not, even born-again Christians sin.) So God came to Earth in the form of a man as Jesus, and died a final sacrificial death to provide a way for man atone for his sins. Jesus taught that simple a belief and acceptance that Jesus died as final sacrifice to atone for your sins, your sins are forgiven, and you will enjoy eternity with God. Reject it, and you are rejecting God's offer to salvation, so you will spend an eternity apart from God. Simple as that.
Ah, but that has no morality built in now does it? Nothing there says society needs to abide by some set of morals nor does it even say what is moral for a Christian to do. Hell, some interpret it to mean that a Christian can do anything he/she wants (ie: never help his fellow man if not explicitly sin) as long as they believe in God (and yes I've heard this from people first hand). As I said, if you want to believe in God or Jesus or a Giant spaghetti monster, go right ahead on your own. Since you apparently are given eternal salvation, it shouldn't matter what the rest of us do with our time on Earth.
See, the one mistake of the religious is to assume that morality and empathy can only come from religion, and not that religion comes from a genetically inherent set of morals and empathy. A Christian may be nice because they fear eternal damnation or gain eternal salvation which is rather selfish. I on the other hand will be nice because I sympathize with my fellow man and wish to help them live a better life. Why? Because I'm born and raised that way, it's inherent in my nature. Heck, I've logically deduced that I should be a Nihilist and it has done rather little for how I act (other than make certain philosophical debates more annoying).
If you need to fear of God to act with some medium of morality and niceness than that scared me more than anything.
As a manager, I'd also be tempted to solve the "wasting time on custom code" problem by either looking at a commercial package that keeps us out of the custom code business or outsourcing the custom code bits.
And you'd thus in many cases you'd be a shitty manager: a) It's likely no commercial package meets all your requirements b) Switching has a large upfront cost (migration, retraining, hiring new support staff, etc.), not counting the actual cost. c) Outsourcing is likely to just create confusion and even more wasted money (quality of code, communication problems, etc.), and at worst royally screw you over (outsourcers go under, their code was horrid and undocumented, enjoy).
There isn't much one can do with a shitty manager really, in some ways you have to assume some rationality and intelligence in the command chain.
And that's a problem with faith in that there is no empirical evidence. Faith requires belief in something you cannot see. Unfortunately, this will never satisfy the self-centered, the science-minded, and the empirical-minded.
In other words once your crude attempt at logic fails you need to resort to veiled insults? Now that's some good old Christian love, eh?
Also, it's amusing that someone who claim "I'm right because I say so, do what I say" to society calls other people self-centered.
All I can say is that as a Christian, I have experienced the joy and peace of my faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. And it is not a self-centered, carnal joy--it is the joy of knowing that by placing my faith in God, by accepting that Jesus Christ died for my sins and upon my belief, I will have an eternal life with God. That's my belief.
Your point? I find it hilarious how religious folk can never understand how the rest of us could possibly be happy, it really is as if you were drug addicts or something. Also, most people (religious or not) consider the greatest joy in their lives to be their children not God or some such.
And with that belief comes an amazing eternal perspective, a high value for life, and a strong belief that morality is handed down by God such that society needs to conform itself to that morality, not morality to society.
And which Christian morality is that? The Baptist one? The Roman Catholic one? The Mormon one? They all say different things on various issues so which is the true moral view handed down by god? Is it the one you believe simply because you believe it, and you say we're self-centered.
Is it possible that it is all some psychologically oriented event? Is it possible that when I die, I'll simply rot? Yes, absolutely! But I have a hope and a faith in something that, if it is true, will provide an eternal joy and peace. And if it is not true, then what have I really lost?
That's your thing, just leave the rest of society alone. Notice the difference? I don't care what sort of delusions you use to achieve happiness but if you try to impose them on the rest of us then you're depriving us of our own happiness.
Let me put it another way: there is no difference between a human and AI deciding what to focus on in the end. Both can make mistakes and both would be giving higher priority for some data instead of other (note that satellites are probably quite in demand with a backlog of potential observations so something will always get bumped out).
If the AI can increase the overall worth of the data gathered by the satellite than good for them. And of course there is no other bloody way to really check (simulation only go so far) how much it helps than to actually stick it on a satellite, that's also research (into better use of satellite resources).
Funny that you call yourself an economist despite having such a horrid ability to understand time or money management.
Well, either it is - in which case we've got this AI heuristics which is going to be right sometimes and wrong sometimes and every now and then it's going to interrupt what it's been *told* to do on the chance that the heuristic is right. That *ain't* how you run a multi-million dollar resource....why exactly not, just because you're incapable of understanding why that is done doesn't mean it's wrong. Let's put value on data and the satellite 50% of the time gather data worth 10 per percent and the rest of the time it gathers data worth 5 per percent. Now it has an AI routine that sometimes will stop looking at the data worth 1 and look at what it thinks is interesting. Let's say the limit on this is 10% of the total time and it is right 10% of the time. However when it is right the data is worth 100 while if it is wrong the data is worth 1. So instead of capturing data worth 50 you instead on average capture data worth 109.
But if it isn't always looking at stuff, then doesn't that seem like we have excess capacity? which gets back to my feeling that this seems like a gratitious satellite, if we can afford to be monkeying around wiht it's *expensive* observation time based on the output of an AI heuristic,
See above, your inability to comprehend time management is amusing.
ESPECIALLY when a human is going to come along very shortly afterwards *anyway* and tell it to look at the right thing.
Except the data it failed to get in that time is gone and you will never get it, a volcano doesn't magically go back two hours of activity because you want the data from then. Also the normal reaction time of a human is probably 8 hours + half orbit time of the sat (so 9 hours or so). That is hardly short and a lot can happen in that time especially if the event happens at night.
...it's a satellite, it looks at stuff on Earth. Every so often it decides on its own to look at something interesting, it still looks at the other stuff it's told to. Unlike you the satellite has enough intelligence to multi task. It is apparently the case that the loss of satellite time due to looking at uninteresting events is considered worth less than the extra data it gains by looking at interesting events on it's own. Human reaction time is slow, by the time we tell it to look at something a lot of data is lost.
Because most of them will be unverifiable and probably down right wrong. IF there are no outside sources for verification and only 1000 people in the world who know anything of the article's subject then you have a single person writing the article probably. Not to mention that the larger the wikipedia the more energy is needed just to maintain some sort of coherence in the articles and remove obviously wrong crap (which means other articles will suffer as this is a finite resource).
I'd prefer a limited wikipedia with good articles to one with everything where half the stuff is utter shit.
The display can simply show the remaining money as bills in the local currency, person presses bill on screen and it comes out. If I remember correctly Indian money is both color and size coded for reasons of illiteracy.
Re:Harddrives wear worse from int Amps than 24/7 u
on
Why Vista Took So Long
·
· Score: 1
a) Stop buying such shitty power supplies, you get what you pay for. b) Get some sort of line cleaning, even a UPS, since apaprently you have amazingly shitty electricity.
Hey, don't blame them it's mostly a cultural and social difference. I mean look at the extent to which DNA evidence is gotten, whole towns could be forced to hand it over (not fully sure of that one) and it's held onto even from suspects even who get acquitted.
Slashdot Mirror
No a bus doesn't hold 30 people at most, it holds as many as you can pack in there like sardines. I've lived in NYC and Warsaw, Poland where the buses and trains are regularly packed to the point of that being an annoyance in its own. I have yet to see any other system at similar capacity in the US, as to put it bluntly people in the US do not use public transportation. Most system may "look" good but are utterly worthless for full time use or except for travel between certain area. So saying that it's well used for a US bus system isn't saying much to be honest.
Also buses aren't the only form of public transit; railed systems of various sorts (light rail, trolleys, trains) are probably much more efficient (in both time and fuel).
*shrug* For me the difference would be (not sure, no car to actually test it with) more like 20-25 minutes by car and 1.5 hours by public transportation. That doesn't take into account that public transportation limits me to leaving at certain times. To get to work I need to at best:
-Take bus to train station (or bike): 10 minutes
-Wait: 10-15 minutes
-Take train to light rail station: 10 minutes
-Wait: 10 minutes
-Take company shuttle to work: 15 minutes
If I'm less than lucky it's:
-Take bus to train station (or bike): 10 minutes
-Wait: 10-15 minutes
-Take train to light rail station: 10 minutes
-Wait: 10 minutes
-Take light rail: 20 minutes
-Wait: 10 minutes
-Take company shuttle to work: 5 minutes
I once had to wait an hour due to bad timing on my part, to be honest it's the fucking juggling of time schedules that I hate the most. Note the very nice and fast train which isn't so nice once you need to get to/from the train station.
Also, the frequency of a traffic jam during rush hour versus problems with the train clearly favours the train rider.
I can go to work anytime I want between 7am and 10:30am basically, meaning that traffic jams would hardly be a problem.
Actually the US rate of consumption increase is about 2% per annum, a bit more precise than "the last few decades", this is in line with population growth. Source : http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc _nus_mbblpd_a.htm I also said current rates of consumption so my original statement did factor this in.
The current rate and expected future usage are not the same thing, it's amusing that you think so. Anyway a lot of sources disagree with you and claim that at the expected rate of consumption (note my mention of China and India, not to mention places like the former USSR) we will hit an oil shortage within the next 50 or so years.
Really and what does a conventional generator do when all this winderful fee energy is being generated? Exactly the same as it does when it is not i.e. they keep on running. Net reduction in Co2 emissions? Nill. You cannot switch a generator on or off like a light, they take time and effort to spin up. In fact the net effect is to increase carbon in atmosphere due to the production of cabling and equipment for renewable generation.
The conventional generators are running at the time but overall you need less of them (note that during peak demand during the summer there is likely to be a lot of nice sunlight to use but not during other periods). Not to mention that there is some economic flexibility in power usage, if you can expect (over the whole grid and such) there to be more power at certain time you can lower the price at those times (this in turn will drive demand up somewhat during that time).
The significance of the Dutch abandoning the expansion of it's wind turbine program is that they cannot get the strategy to work. The have an open western seaboard with pissibly the best laminar airflow you can get and they still cannot get it to work. That is a reasoned and sentient argument, understood by intelligent people, something which you obviously struggle with.
No, I simply am not stupid enough to make wild conclusions from a simple statement. See, I'd actually go and read WHY they're no longer expanding not just jump to random conclusions.
I am an accredited engineer and you obviously fuck pigs for a living.
Oh, did I touch a nerve there Mr. Engineer? That's like the most worthless example of "I know this area" that I've heard in a while. I know a lot of electrical engineers, and most know very little about this area as they've had no training or experience in it.
There is enough known resource to last for 200 years at current rates of consumption.
...there could be hundreds of reasons for them to stop, none having anything to do with how viable it is. Only an utter moron would consider that sentence to be any sort of argument at all on it's own.
The world oil consumption is not constant, the US alone has doubled it's oil consumption in the last few decades. Europe has stayed the same but with India and China entering the game that won't matter much probably.
As for wind and sun as sources of electrical power, can I ask what we do when it is dark? Or there is no wind blowing?
Amazingly enough many people can consider using *gasp* multiple sources of electricity production, what a fucking amazing concept, no? Here's a hint: blackouts and summer heat waves, plenty of sun during that peak usage.
These are lovely ideas but if wind was any damn good the Dutch would still be using it, but they have stopped further wind turbine installations.
It is time for real engineers to make the decisions on how we proceed and not unqualified "experts" of which there appears to be an almost limitless resource.
So exactly why are you posting an argument anyway, shouldn't you heed your own advice and stfu?
An economy car uses LESS energhy, and pollutes less then any public transportation.
And oddly enough 20 times as many people use that public transportation so it pollutes less (not to mention that electricity apparently is less polluting to produce than gasoline is to burn even by coal power plants).
BS, in 95%+ of the US the public transportation system is SHIT. Grocery shopping is a giant PITA for me if nothing else. The only reason I can even sanely take public transportation to work is because my company provides free employ shuttle to the train station. Otherwise it'd take me well over 2 hours to go the 12 miles to work, even with all that it takes between 1 and 1.5 hours to get to work. Hell, I've biked 6 miles back (lived closer) a few times because I realized that it'd be faster than public transportation. Note that even at best I still needed to bike to the train station (or walk for 25 minutes) as no bus came near my house then. If I need to stay late the only way I can get home in under 2.5 hours is if I bring my bike with me (I'm not even sure a bus runs that late meaning I'd have to walk 35 minutes to the train station). All of this is decidedly not fun during a CA heat wave or right now during the lovely cold bay area nights.
In most places the blind can be locked up in their homes and have food delivered as well, I guess we can ban their dogs from grocery stores as well since they don't need to be there. The point is that certain groups in the US consider hunting to be a required part of being in their society or community. Probably a bonding thing like football, computer games or some such.
The point of various disability laws isn't to make sure the disabled person marginally survives and doesn't starve to death but to allow them to be part of society. You know, to lead as normal a life as society is capable of helping them live and all that.
...just buy some rechargeable and plug them into the charger every so often.
Crossovers don't usually create anything "new" but simply mix up existing traits and information. So while crossovers introduce variance into the population and help new genes spread their influence is limited. At best they'll give you a good set of genes but you're still limited to what you started with. Mutations on the other hand introduce new genes which may (or may not) have a beneficial effect.
A bunch of these are probably for school credit or even for a class (I think Stanford made it its own class but I'm too lazy to check the course guide). Furthermore the top teams are mainly grad students, probably ones who are doing specializing in robotics and likewise for credit (I think the Stanford team had one undergrad and he wasn't allowed to do much important stuff). In other words for them this is much better than the coursework which they've potentially already maxed out.
Also in terms of employment this is probably quite helpful even for undergrads not going into robotics, the connections you can probably make are worth more than any GPA. In 10 years your GPA won't matter squat but being able to send your resume directly to some high up manager of a company will be worth just as much. And for Grad school this will be even better, especially if your adviser is well known and writes you a kick ass recommendation letter due to it.
Yes because everyone will just love spending 5 minutes restoring their running programs and open documents...
Sorry to break it to you but boot is the smallest part of what it takes to get up and running. God knows I could boot faster than it takes me to get out of hibernate on my laptop (on average counting time to fix whatever fails to work) but getting everything open again would take forever.
As for saving power, we already have tons of power saving options in computer: Monitors go to sleep, computers go to sleep, hard drive turn off and so on. Heck, if you want to save even more power you can have it hibernate which is also nice for dual booting.
No, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. The point of this is not to be so easy that 5 teams win the first time but to be challenging, with an assumption that likely no one will win the first time (or second, or third even, etc.). And yes, NYC is so much like driving through a fake city where the other drivers are all professionals with most likely very well reinforced cars. Hey, let's ban Nascar as well since it's probably 100 times as dangerous to human life as this ever will be.
Christianity is simply the belief that God created everything and created man with free will. After warning us not to commit a specific sin, man chose to sin with that free will, and with that sin came consequense: death. Across history, man has tried to appease God with sacrifices, but man was never able to gain God's grace because left to his own devices, man continues to sin. (And yes, believe it or not, even born-again Christians sin.) So God came to Earth in the form of a man as Jesus, and died a final sacrificial death to provide a way for man atone for his sins. Jesus taught that simple a belief and acceptance that Jesus died as final sacrifice to atone for your sins, your sins are forgiven, and you will enjoy eternity with God. Reject it, and you are rejecting God's offer to salvation, so you will spend an eternity apart from God. Simple as that.
Ah, but that has no morality built in now does it? Nothing there says society needs to abide by some set of morals nor does it even say what is moral for a Christian to do. Hell, some interpret it to mean that a Christian can do anything he/she wants (ie: never help his fellow man if not explicitly sin) as long as they believe in God (and yes I've heard this from people first hand). As I said, if you want to believe in God or Jesus or a Giant spaghetti monster, go right ahead on your own. Since you apparently are given eternal salvation, it shouldn't matter what the rest of us do with our time on Earth.
See, the one mistake of the religious is to assume that morality and empathy can only come from religion, and not that religion comes from a genetically inherent set of morals and empathy. A Christian may be nice because they fear eternal damnation or gain eternal salvation which is rather selfish. I on the other hand will be nice because I sympathize with my fellow man and wish to help them live a better life. Why? Because I'm born and raised that way, it's inherent in my nature. Heck, I've logically deduced that I should be a Nihilist and it has done rather little for how I act (other than make certain philosophical debates more annoying).
If you need to fear of God to act with some medium of morality and niceness than that scared me more than anything.
As a manager, I'd also be tempted to solve the "wasting time on custom code" problem by either looking at a commercial package that keeps us out of the custom code business or outsourcing the custom code bits.
And you'd thus in many cases you'd be a shitty manager:
a) It's likely no commercial package meets all your requirements
b) Switching has a large upfront cost (migration, retraining, hiring new support staff, etc.), not counting the actual cost.
c) Outsourcing is likely to just create confusion and even more wasted money (quality of code, communication problems, etc.), and at worst royally screw you over (outsourcers go under, their code was horrid and undocumented, enjoy).
There isn't much one can do with a shitty manager really, in some ways you have to assume some rationality and intelligence in the command chain.
And that's a problem with faith in that there is no empirical evidence. Faith requires belief in something you cannot see. Unfortunately, this will never satisfy the self-centered, the science-minded, and the empirical-minded.
In other words once your crude attempt at logic fails you need to resort to veiled insults? Now that's some good old Christian love, eh?
Also, it's amusing that someone who claim "I'm right because I say so, do what I say" to society calls other people self-centered.
All I can say is that as a Christian, I have experienced the joy and peace of my faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. And it is not a self-centered, carnal joy--it is the joy of knowing that by placing my faith in God, by accepting that Jesus Christ died for my sins and upon my belief, I will have an eternal life with God. That's my belief.
Your point? I find it hilarious how religious folk can never understand how the rest of us could possibly be happy, it really is as if you were drug addicts or something. Also, most people (religious or not) consider the greatest joy in their lives to be their children not God or some such.
And with that belief comes an amazing eternal perspective, a high value for life, and a strong belief that morality is handed down by God such that society needs to conform itself to that morality, not morality to society.
And which Christian morality is that? The Baptist one? The Roman Catholic one? The Mormon one? They all say different things on various issues so which is the true moral view handed down by god? Is it the one you believe simply because you believe it, and you say we're self-centered.
Is it possible that it is all some psychologically oriented event? Is it possible that when I die, I'll simply rot? Yes, absolutely! But I have a hope and a faith in something that, if it is true, will provide an eternal joy and peace. And if it is not true, then what have I really lost?
That's your thing, just leave the rest of society alone. Notice the difference? I don't care what sort of delusions you use to achieve happiness but if you try to impose them on the rest of us then you're depriving us of our own happiness.
Exactly, I don't mind ads however all too often ads are now plain annoying (not just popups but flash with sound, covering site content, etc.)
I'm disgusted that such opinions are casually treated as acceptable in this day and age.
Well since it was written by 55+ year old women I'd give them some slack as they grew up in a different age and time.
Let me put it another way: there is no difference between a human and AI deciding what to focus on in the end. Both can make mistakes and both would be giving higher priority for some data instead of other (note that satellites are probably quite in demand with a backlog of potential observations so something will always get bumped out).
If the AI can increase the overall worth of the data gathered by the satellite than good for them. And of course there is no other bloody way to really check (simulation only go so far) how much it helps than to actually stick it on a satellite, that's also research (into better use of satellite resources).
Funny that you call yourself an economist despite having such a horrid ability to understand time or money management.
Well, either it is - in which case we've got this AI heuristics which is going to be right sometimes and wrong sometimes and every now and then it's going to interrupt what it's been *told* to do on the chance that the heuristic is right. That *ain't* how you run a multi-million dollar resource. ...why exactly not, just because you're incapable of understanding why that is done doesn't mean it's wrong. Let's put value on data and the satellite 50% of the time gather data worth 10 per percent and the rest of the time it gathers data worth 5 per percent. Now it has an AI routine that sometimes will stop looking at the data worth 1 and look at what it thinks is interesting. Let's say the limit on this is 10% of the total time and it is right 10% of the time. However when it is right the data is worth 100 while if it is wrong the data is worth 1. So instead of capturing data worth 50 you instead on average capture data worth 109.
But if it isn't always looking at stuff, then doesn't that seem like we have excess capacity? which gets back to my feeling that this seems like a gratitious satellite, if we can afford to be monkeying around wiht it's *expensive* observation time based on the output of an AI heuristic,
See above, your inability to comprehend time management is amusing.
ESPECIALLY when a human is going to come along very shortly afterwards *anyway* and tell it to look at the right thing.
Except the data it failed to get in that time is gone and you will never get it, a volcano doesn't magically go back two hours of activity because you want the data from then. Also the normal reaction time of a human is probably 8 hours + half orbit time of the sat (so 9 hours or so). That is hardly short and a lot can happen in that time especially if the event happens at night.
...it's a satellite, it looks at stuff on Earth. Every so often it decides on its own to look at something interesting, it still looks at the other stuff it's told to. Unlike you the satellite has enough intelligence to multi task. It is apparently the case that the loss of satellite time due to looking at uninteresting events is considered worth less than the extra data it gains by looking at interesting events on it's own. Human reaction time is slow, by the time we tell it to look at something a lot of data is lost.
No more like a quarter of the voting age population, the voter turnout is around 50%.
Because most of them will be unverifiable and probably down right wrong. IF there are no outside sources for verification and only 1000 people in the world who know anything of the article's subject then you have a single person writing the article probably. Not to mention that the larger the wikipedia the more energy is needed just to maintain some sort of coherence in the articles and remove obviously wrong crap (which means other articles will suffer as this is a finite resource).
I'd prefer a limited wikipedia with good articles to one with everything where half the stuff is utter shit.
The display can simply show the remaining money as bills in the local currency, person presses bill on screen and it comes out. If I remember correctly Indian money is both color and size coded for reasons of illiteracy.
a) Stop buying such shitty power supplies, you get what you pay for.
b) Get some sort of line cleaning, even a UPS, since apaprently you have amazingly shitty electricity.
Hey, don't blame them it's mostly a cultural and social difference. I mean look at the extent to which DNA evidence is gotten, whole towns could be forced to hand it over (not fully sure of that one) and it's held onto even from suspects even who get acquitted.