Well, to be accurate, that whole "democracy" thing hasn't been a real problem in our society for some time. Nor do we face any problem with a "republic" thing.
Look here, you bastard. You think it's easy learning to put on the magic underwear? You think it's easy, learning to float? You people just don't understand sex edumacation. If you did, you'd never say such HurtfulThings(tm.)
So far, most of the declarations which have been made public as to what "healthy baseline sexual relationship" means that I have encountered have been not so much simply wrong, as ludicrously stupid and profoundly wrongheaded.
The way I see it is this: Informed consent between the actual parties to the act(s.) That's it. That's all of it.
As soon as some wag wants to intervene without those parties consent, now there really is a problem that can realistically be defined as anti "healthy baseline sexual relationship."
We have an additional problem because we use an arbitrary "line in the sand" in a (inevitably doomed to failure) attempt to assign informed status in a completely arbitrary manner. Imagine if we said "at 16, you magically become ready to drive a car, here's the keys, see you on the freeway." The problems would be epic. That's exactly how we "manage" sexuality. We don't care if you are informed, we just up and claim you are because magic beans or fairy dust or something. And, of course, the resulting problems are similarly epic.
...which is busily reporting its position and direction of movement.
Seriously, It's a non-starter. This isn't the 1940's. We're not talking about Robby the robot. The very technologies that make this possible -- cameras, GPS, compasses, RF communications, secure recordings, encryption, power locks -- all serve to impede criminal activity on multiple fronts at once.
It will be hilarious watching idiots trying to break into a secure internal compartment in order to make off with a plate of noodles, or a $19.95 payment for same on the return trip to the vehicle.
Do you really think no one would consider security?
You are confusing the rate in a small sample with the probability of an event.
One in 100 chance does not mean there will be exactly one accident in 100 events. There might be zero; there might be ten. Might happen on launch one; might happen on launch 100; might not happen at all; might happen on launches 40 through 60 (though I agree this would be disturbing...;)
What it actually means is that over a long series of events taken in groups of 100, the average rate of problems is expected to work out to one in 100. A sample of 135 with two events in no way contradicts the expectation.
For instance, I can tell you, and you are probably aware, that a fair coin flip has a 50% probability of heads.
However, it would not be in the least bit (hah!) unusual to see heads, heads, tails, heads in the first four flips. Approaching it the way you do, though, you'd be saying that such a result shows a 75% probability that the operation results in heads. Which is wrong. The observed rate for a sample of four was h-h-t-h. The probability remains at 1:2 and is in no way contradicted by the h-h-t-h result. Or a t-t-h-t result, or an h-t-h-h result. Etc.
1:2 does NOT means that one of two or two of four will be heads. It just means that in a long sequence, it's predicted (correctly, as it happens, if the circumstances are otherwise unbiased) settle out to that.
Which is not to say that those generally ignorant of how probability actually works won't set their expectations incorrectly; of course they will. That's why we have lotteries, McDonald's "Monopoly", and a good deal of the businesses in Las Vegas.
But I assure you, when the probability of a shuttle accident was assessed at 1:100, the people doing so did understand what they were doing, and what that prediction means. It is hardly their fault, or NASA's, when an individual doesn't understand what they've been told. That's more down to a failure to learn on the part of the individual. Also, I absolutely guarantee you that each and every astronaut and passenger that went up in the shuttle knew these facts perfectly well.
But the fact you said that speech recognition is a "hard problem" shows you are clueless. Speech recognition is a solved problem.
No, It isn't. The (partial, failure-prone) attempts we have now rely on huge server systems. There is no, repeat no, stand alone solution that is even close to good enough for general use, or even specific individual use with careful training, at this point in time.
The analysis is flat-out wrong. Those reserves will still be used; even if we completely stopped burning them for fuel this year, we would still need them. Right now, over half of each barrel of oil goes for about 6,000 non-fuel products:
You must be on a salt restricted diet. Nobody likes unsalted earth, or earth that only has the salt you added while cooking.
Myself, I like to scorch it, salt it, scrape it into a squarish pile with four corners, dye it red, vibrate it until I'm sure the earth moved, and then chant "Tara! Tara! Tara!" I do all this wearing Birkenstocks. It's a thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Answer: Interference with informed, consensual choice.
And we're talking about Mormons.
Coincidence?
Well, to be accurate, that whole "democracy" thing hasn't been a real problem in our society for some time. Nor do we face any problem with a "republic" thing.
What we actually have is an oligarchy problem.
Interfering with informed, consensual choice is obscene.
Look here, you bastard. You think it's easy learning to put on the magic underwear? You think it's easy, learning to float? You people just don't understand sex edumacation. If you did, you'd never say such HurtfulThings(tm.)
So far, most of the declarations which have been made public as to what "healthy baseline sexual relationship" means that I have encountered have been not so much simply wrong, as ludicrously stupid and profoundly wrongheaded.
The way I see it is this: Informed consent between the actual parties to the act(s.) That's it. That's all of it.
As soon as some wag wants to intervene without those parties consent, now there really is a problem that can realistically be defined as anti "healthy baseline sexual relationship."
We have an additional problem because we use an arbitrary "line in the sand" in a (inevitably doomed to failure) attempt to assign informed status in a completely arbitrary manner. Imagine if we said "at 16, you magically become ready to drive a car, here's the keys, see you on the freeway." The problems would be epic. That's exactly how we "manage" sexuality. We don't care if you are informed, we just up and claim you are because magic beans or fairy dust or something. And, of course, the resulting problems are similarly epic.
You assume the only cameras will be on the robot. Not exactly a safe assumption. Even now.
Sorry. The days of romping and stomping all over everything and being unidentifiable are over.
Every day there are more cameras, more camera platforms, higher recording resolutions, more storage.
Welcome to the real world. Orwell was an optimist.
Well, just imagine the surprise of a customer on the other side of town when the robot opens its package bay and "delivers" the four year old. :)
Americans typically use these boxes, in this order:
o Idiot box
o Cereal box
o Idiot box
o Amazon box
o Idiot box
o Comment box
o Idiot box
Underrated
Seriously, It's a non-starter. This isn't the 1940's. We're not talking about Robby the robot. The very technologies that make this possible -- cameras, GPS, compasses, RF communications, secure recordings, encryption, power locks -- all serve to impede criminal activity on multiple fronts at once.
It will be hilarious watching idiots trying to break into a secure internal compartment in order to make off with a plate of noodles, or a $19.95 payment for same on the return trip to the vehicle.
Do you really think no one would consider security?
Please.
Math is math. It doesn't change how it works because you don't like it.
Underrated
Right, sorry, not non-fuel, non-gasoline. Which was the issue when discussing electric cars.
Trucks, trains and aircraft will like remain with more energy dense sources for some time yet.
No. They don't. To recap:
Tossing a coin 4x and getting heads-heads-tails-heads does NOT show other than 2:1
AND:
Launching the shuttle 135 times and getting two fails does NOT show other than 1:100
Same EXACT issue: Nowhere near enough sample runs to demonstrate empirically that the calculated odds for one sample are wrong.
Better to "buy them off" than let them starve and suffer exposure and disease.
Pretty obvious, really.
You are confusing the rate in a small sample with the probability of an event.
One in 100 chance does not mean there will be exactly one accident in 100 events. There might be zero; there might be ten. Might happen on launch one; might happen on launch 100; might not happen at all; might happen on launches 40 through 60 (though I agree this would be disturbing... ;)
What it actually means is that over a long series of events taken in groups of 100, the average rate of problems is expected to work out to one in 100. A sample of 135 with two events in no way contradicts the expectation.
For instance, I can tell you, and you are probably aware, that a fair coin flip has a 50% probability of heads.
However, it would not be in the least bit (hah!) unusual to see heads, heads, tails, heads in the first four flips. Approaching it the way you do, though, you'd be saying that such a result shows a 75% probability that the operation results in heads. Which is wrong. The observed rate for a sample of four was h-h-t-h. The probability remains at 1:2 and is in no way contradicted by the h-h-t-h result. Or a t-t-h-t result, or an h-t-h-h result. Etc.
1:2 does NOT means that one of two or two of four will be heads. It just means that in a long sequence, it's predicted (correctly, as it happens, if the circumstances are otherwise unbiased) settle out to that.
Which is not to say that those generally ignorant of how probability actually works won't set their expectations incorrectly; of course they will. That's why we have lotteries, McDonald's "Monopoly", and a good deal of the businesses in Las Vegas.
But I assure you, when the probability of a shuttle accident was assessed at 1:100, the people doing so did understand what they were doing, and what that prediction means. It is hardly their fault, or NASA's, when an individual doesn't understand what they've been told. That's more down to a failure to learn on the part of the individual. Also, I absolutely guarantee you that each and every astronaut and passenger that went up in the shuttle knew these facts perfectly well.
Wrong. Go do some googling.
No, It isn't. The (partial, failure-prone) attempts we have now rely on huge server systems. There is no, repeat no, stand alone solution that is even close to good enough for general use, or even specific individual use with careful training, at this point in time.
The analysis is flat-out wrong. Those reserves will still be used; even if we completely stopped burning them for fuel this year, we would still need them. Right now, over half of each barrel of oil goes for about 6,000 non-fuel products:
Here's a partial reference
So -- at most, assuming no new uses are discovered for it, which is an extremely poor assumption --, those stocks would take twice as long to use up.
So, no. No one will be leaving those in the ground, abandoning the value they represent. Not going to happen.
These are not power sources. They are power transport mechanisms.
There were 135 or 136 space shuttle missions.
There were two accidents.
Odds were estimated at 1:100
Two in 135 is right in the ballpark.
So no, your point does not stand.
I bought my storage from realdoll.com, you insensitive clod!
You must be on a salt restricted diet. Nobody likes unsalted earth, or earth that only has the salt you added while cooking.
Myself, I like to scorch it, salt it, scrape it into a squarish pile with four corners, dye it red, vibrate it until I'm sure the earth moved, and then chant "Tara! Tara! Tara!" I do all this wearing Birkenstocks. It's a thing.
Tastes much better that way. Really.
The zombies will get you either way. It's hopeless, really.