The problem with this argument is that it demands the impossible.
It's not an argument. It's a set of facts. The only argument I made was that we should actively work to minimize human contribution to climate change.
the basic hypothesis that human activity is causing climate change is fairly well settled now.
A hypothesis is not a theory; by definition, it's an insufficiently tested set of ideas not yet (or possibly ever) worthy of the description "theory." None of which means we should be making any more of a mess than we absolutely have to.
As for nuclear, it's not NIMBYs, it's the cost.
First principles: The NIMBYs are a key factor in what jacked up the costs to the ridiculous levels they are at now. From legislation to location, the NIMBYs underlie a great deal of the problems. The rest are sourced by entrenched coal and oil interests. The actual cost of such plants is not at all unreasonable. The tacked-on costs most certainly are.
Think about the shrug; what does it mean to you? Does it mean "I don't know" or is it a dismissive gesture meaning "I don't care" and/or "what you think is irrelevant"?
Think about the tongue sticking out: is it a playful, nose-crunched-into-wrinkles expression, or is it a "nyah, nyah, you suck" expression?
Think about the huge yellow smile. Think about context. Can you assure that the context you feel is in play, is the one the other person thinks is in play?
The AI is there, or so close to it as to make no difference at all. Done deal. The rest is a matter of normal truck cabs wearing out and being replaced (that actually happens pretty fast in most cases, trucks do heavy service and they don't last all that long) and/or financial decisions based on available capital, and the ROI of replacing fallible, expensive humans with much less fallible automation and (for a little while, anyway) a much less expensive grunt laborer.
The median annual wage for a trucker that works for a private fleet, such as a truck driver employed by Walmart, is $73,000, according to ATA. The Labor Department pegs the median annual salary for all truck drivers at around $40,000. Of course, the cost is higher than the salary: social security, insurance, etc. Ten years of that is about half a million dollars. A new tractor (the part of the truck we're talking about): $110,000 to $125,000. The laborers, if even required in the use case, will only be temporary and will cost much less anyway.
It's pretty obvious what's going to happen here. Companies will automate as fast as they can; the financial case is hugely in favor of it.
How would that work exactly? It wouldn't work for home delivery. It wouldn't work for commerical delivery where the same truck goes to multiple customers, or any sort of route sales for that matter
From the post you were replying to:
In the "we'll unload this for you" [category], other types of automation will be employed, so that's perhaps a couple or three years down the road, so to speak, but nonetheless, inevitable.
Just learn to do work that is of value to society.
That response is so clueless I won't dignify it with a direct comment.
The (anti-gun) left sure does think a lot of itself. If society divides into one group that does work of value to society, and one group that doesn't, which group do you imagine will have the power?
WTF are you taking about now? I am pro-constitution, and the constitution says "right to keep and carry", and as far as I'm concerned, barring use of, and success in employing, article 5, arms, kept and carried, are 100% legitimate. I own firearms (and several other types of arms) and consider anti-gun sentiment, quite aside from constitutional issues, to be completely misdirected. People commit crimes because they want to. If they use an object, it's not the object's fault. If they can't get one object to accomplish their goals, they will use another. And yes, absolutely, criminals will have weapons, and law-abiding citizens would not, in an environment where calling for law enforcement might (and I do mean might) get you a response in minutes, in a situation where every second counts, you could die, your family could die, etc. Anti-gun people are being both stupid and shortsighted. NONE of which changes the fact that they are extremely numerous and would just as soon see you completely defenseless and anyone who disagrees with them muzzled, pun intended.
Also, none of which changes the fact that the Republicans have absolutely nothing of value to offer in terms of a candidate at this point in time, or that the Republican party has fractured into a drooling bunch of Trumpettes, a collection of theocrat-worshiping fools, and a remainder of more-or-less run of the mill party plankers (most of whom are absolutely appalled at the very presence of Trump and Cruz in the primaries.) Libertarians (both cases) are such a minority that even without being actually reviled, they are basically irrelevant. I would know: a lot of my views lean strongly (small-L) libertarian. None of which makes me think that other individuals aren't just as worthy of being kept healthy and sheltered as I am, no matter if they agree with me or not, BTW.
Today, the US embassy issued a travel warning for Japan. When this reporter asked US ambassador Mumblechops for comment on this, he told me that the number of fingerless tourists returning to the US had crossed an unacceptable threshold. "They can't even hold the panties from the panty vending machines" he said indignantly.
My interview was cut short as the ambassador was called away to a meeting; I caught the phonetics "Love Hotel", an acronym I am unfamiliar with, but which no doubt designates a weighty matter of US national security.
If you keep the whip in the middle of their backs, they generally drive pretty straight until they're just too tired. Then they fall over. Same as other forms of cattle. Just ask Fox News.
No, no need to thank me, delighted to enlighten you.
Some truck drivers are delivery drivers. They won't be replaced with self-driving trucks
Sure they will. In the "you get to unload this yourself" category, there's nothing technological to stop it. In the "we'll unload this for you", other types of automation will be employed, so that's perhaps a couple or three years down the road, so to speak, but nonetheless, inevitable.
Better start voting for people who know what a social safety net is and are willing to fight for same. Because every vote for those who want to dismantle that will make this transition (and the many others like it coming down the pike) generally harder at the society level, and at the worker level, outright disastrous. Retraining and reemploying all the people who are going to be out of a job isn't even remotely practical.
If you can even vaguely understand the points I just made, Sanders is who you want for president. Then you want to elect similar congresscritters, etc. If you can't... well, being a Republican or large-L libertarian won't get you lynched. Yet.
Other things as well. When I was a young man, the habit of the previous generation(s?) had been to throw crap out of car windows, throw cigarette and cigar butts on the ground, pollute the living hell out of lakes and streams, etc. Some pretty awful ecological results came about; and visually.... ugh. Awful.
We got most of that handled; it was one of the more important challenges of my generation.
You have some new ones, like keeping the idiots from dismantling the EPA and so on; I wish you the best of luck dealing with that.
Your argument that any climate change caused by man is "bad and threatens our existence on this planet" is such that you need to go find another argument. Because if what's happening now is bad, and we change it to not-bad, then that's climate change caused by man. Which, according to your maddened outburst, would then be bad. Which puts you in the positioning of arguing for not doing anything that would change the climate from bad to good.
Try not to wave your hands so hard. You're going to hurt your wrists.:)
it seems pretty clear that with a quote like "Weather changes all the time!" that they actauly do not doubt that the climate is changing at all.
Weather is not climate. For about the millionth time.
And as stated above, yes, the climate is changing.
How much of that is caused by man, and more importantly, how much will be caused by man in the next hundred years or so, has not been established. The models that purport to be predictive disagree with one another; disagree with the actual observed climate; offer no precursor climate event that shores up their ideas; suffer from precursor climate events that contradict their ideas; and are almost certain to be massively disrupted by technological change even if they were spot on WRT today's conditions anyway.
Aside from that, the obvious sane path is to contribute the least that is practical to changes in atmospheric gas mix, particulate levels, and temperature change. Solar and nuclear power are the two technologies that offer the best shot at reducing all of those. Solar is growing and advancing technologically at a very high rate, storage (a required facet of really solid general solar power supply) is behind but changing fast in the right direction, and nuclear... sigh. Nuclear is still suffering various slings and arrows that have little or no actual relevance today. Never underestimate the power of fear-mongering. They ever want to put a nuke in my back yard then PIIMBY (Put It In My Back Yard), I'll bake them a cake and move all my stuff out of the way.
We're discussing Google here. Not Android. However, I already made the point that Android is more open than Google's app store is; it is also more open than iOS is.
Google has every right to decide what applications it will and won't accept in its app store; and what developers it will and won't accept. In so doing, however, they create a walled garden -- some are allowed in, and some are not.
Android in general, on the other hand, can be more open, and that is something to be grateful for, in my view, inasmuch as Google's app store content policies impose limits I can do without.
Unlocked... that word doesn't mean what you think it means.
When a door cannot be passed because it is prevented from opening, and those who manage the door refuse to open it... that door is not unlocked.
Google's app store definitely has walls, and the doors definitely have locks, and it definitely has rules about who, and what, Google will open those doors for.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not an argument. It's a set of facts. The only argument I made was that we should actively work to minimize human contribution to climate change.
A hypothesis is not a theory; by definition, it's an insufficiently tested set of ideas not yet (or possibly ever) worthy of the description "theory." None of which means we should be making any more of a mess than we absolutely have to.
First principles: The NIMBYs are a key factor in what jacked up the costs to the ridiculous levels they are at now. From legislation to location, the NIMBYs underlie a great deal of the problems. The rest are sourced by entrenched coal and oil interests. The actual cost of such plants is not at all unreasonable. The tacked-on costs most certainly are.
That's a robotic arm bringing a refueling source to a client. That it's electric is entirely beside the point.
Why, sure it does. It gives moderators the time they need to provide the "I disagree" mod your post so desperately needs!
Oh, you mean like the people who wrote, maintain(ed) and inherited the source code for slashdot.
Think about the shrug; what does it mean to you? Does it mean "I don't know" or is it a dismissive gesture meaning "I don't care" and/or "what you think is irrelevant"?
Think about the tongue sticking out: is it a playful, nose-crunched-into-wrinkles expression, or is it a "nyah, nyah, you suck" expression?
Think about the huge yellow smile. Think about context. Can you assure that the context you feel is in play, is the one the other person thinks is in play?
There's no universal guide to this.
Because you have functional critical thinking facilities.
The AI is there, or so close to it as to make no difference at all. Done deal. The rest is a matter of normal truck cabs wearing out and being replaced (that actually happens pretty fast in most cases, trucks do heavy service and they don't last all that long) and/or financial decisions based on available capital, and the ROI of replacing fallible, expensive humans with much less fallible automation and (for a little while, anyway) a much less expensive grunt laborer.
The median annual wage for a trucker that works for a private fleet, such as a truck driver employed by Walmart, is $73,000, according to ATA. The Labor Department pegs the median annual salary for all truck drivers at around $40,000. Of course, the cost is higher than the salary: social security, insurance, etc. Ten years of that is about half a million dollars. A new tractor (the part of the truck we're talking about): $110,000 to $125,000. The laborers, if even required in the use case, will only be temporary and will cost much less anyway.
It's pretty obvious what's going to happen here. Companies will automate as fast as they can; the financial case is hugely in favor of it.
That's been true in the past. Should it remain true in a society where work is simply not available for many?
Of course not.
From the post you were replying to:
That response is so clueless I won't dignify it with a direct comment.
WTF are you taking about now? I am pro-constitution, and the constitution says "right to keep and carry", and as far as I'm concerned, barring use of, and success in employing, article 5, arms, kept and carried, are 100% legitimate. I own firearms (and several other types of arms) and consider anti-gun sentiment, quite aside from constitutional issues, to be completely misdirected. People commit crimes because they want to. If they use an object, it's not the object's fault. If they can't get one object to accomplish their goals, they will use another. And yes, absolutely, criminals will have weapons, and law-abiding citizens would not, in an environment where calling for law enforcement might (and I do mean might) get you a response in minutes, in a situation where every second counts, you could die, your family could die, etc. Anti-gun people are being both stupid and shortsighted. NONE of which changes the fact that they are extremely numerous and would just as soon see you completely defenseless and anyone who disagrees with them muzzled, pun intended.
Also, none of which changes the fact that the Republicans have absolutely nothing of value to offer in terms of a candidate at this point in time, or that the Republican party has fractured into a drooling bunch of Trumpettes, a collection of theocrat-worshiping fools, and a remainder of more-or-less run of the mill party plankers (most of whom are absolutely appalled at the very presence of Trump and Cruz in the primaries.) Libertarians (both cases) are such a minority that even without being actually reviled, they are basically irrelevant. I would know: a lot of my views lean strongly (small-L) libertarian. None of which makes me think that other individuals aren't just as worthy of being kept healthy and sheltered as I am, no matter if they agree with me or not, BTW.
Dude, they'll cut off the fingers. After they use them to empty your accounts, they'll eat them with a whale and dolphin garnish.
Dateline: Tokyo, April, 2016
Today, the US embassy issued a travel warning for Japan. When this reporter asked US ambassador Mumblechops for comment on this, he told me that the number of fingerless tourists returning to the US had crossed an unacceptable threshold. "They can't even hold the panties from the panty vending machines" he said indignantly.
My interview was cut short as the ambassador was called away to a meeting; I caught the phonetics "Love Hotel", an acronym I am unfamiliar with, but which no doubt designates a weighty matter of US national security.
Automated refueling tech
Kinda like this
If you keep the whip in the middle of their backs, they generally drive pretty straight until they're just too tired. Then they fall over. Same as other forms of cattle. Just ask Fox News.
No, no need to thank me, delighted to enlighten you.
Sure they will. In the "you get to unload this yourself" category, there's nothing technological to stop it. In the "we'll unload this for you", other types of automation will be employed, so that's perhaps a couple or three years down the road, so to speak, but nonetheless, inevitable.
Better start voting for people who know what a social safety net is and are willing to fight for same. Because every vote for those who want to dismantle that will make this transition (and the many others like it coming down the pike) generally harder at the society level, and at the worker level, outright disastrous. Retraining and reemploying all the people who are going to be out of a job isn't even remotely practical.
If you can even vaguely understand the points I just made, Sanders is who you want for president. Then you want to elect similar congresscritters, etc.
If you can't... well, being a Republican or large-L libertarian won't get you lynched. Yet.
Other things as well. When I was a young man, the habit of the previous generation(s?) had been to throw crap out of car windows, throw cigarette and cigar butts on the ground, pollute the living hell out of lakes and streams, etc. Some pretty awful ecological results came about; and visually.... ugh. Awful.
We got most of that handled; it was one of the more important challenges of my generation.
You have some new ones, like keeping the idiots from dismantling the EPA and so on; I wish you the best of luck dealing with that.
Your argument that any climate change caused by man is "bad and threatens our existence on this planet" is such that you need to go find another argument. Because if what's happening now is bad, and we change it to not-bad, then that's climate change caused by man. Which, according to your maddened outburst, would then be bad. Which puts you in the positioning of arguing for not doing anything that would change the climate from bad to good.
Try not to wave your hands so hard. You're going to hurt your wrists. :)
...because the other end... isn't.
I know, that's what you were implying. I just liked saying it. :)
Weather is not climate. For about the millionth time.
And as stated above, yes, the climate is changing.
How much of that is caused by man, and more importantly, how much will be caused by man in the next hundred years or so, has not been established. The models that purport to be predictive disagree with one another; disagree with the actual observed climate; offer no precursor climate event that shores up their ideas; suffer from precursor climate events that contradict their ideas; and are almost certain to be massively disrupted by technological change even if they were spot on WRT today's conditions anyway.
Aside from that, the obvious sane path is to contribute the least that is practical to changes in atmospheric gas mix, particulate levels, and temperature change. Solar and nuclear power are the two technologies that offer the best shot at reducing all of those. Solar is growing and advancing technologically at a very high rate, storage (a required facet of really solid general solar power supply) is behind but changing fast in the right direction, and nuclear... sigh. Nuclear is still suffering various slings and arrows that have little or no actual relevance today. Never underestimate the power of fear-mongering. They ever want to put a nuke in my back yard then PIIMBY (Put It In My Back Yard), I'll bake them a cake and move all my stuff out of the way.
I said that. The term is pumped storage. Look it up.
We're discussing Google here. Not Android. However, I already made the point that Android is more open than Google's app store is; it is also more open than iOS is.
No, to get the best results in this particular quest, you search everyone. Anything less will perform more poorly.
Google has every right to decide what applications it will and won't accept in its app store; and what developers it will and won't accept. In so doing, however, they create a walled garden -- some are allowed in, and some are not.
Android in general, on the other hand, can be more open, and that is something to be grateful for, in my view, inasmuch as Google's app store content policies impose limits I can do without.
You're letting order of operations hide the net effect from you. You can read this for the official policies.
Unlocked... that word doesn't mean what you think it means.
When a door cannot be passed because it is prevented from opening, and those who manage the door refuse to open it... that door is not unlocked.
Google's app store definitely has walls, and the doors definitely have locks, and it definitely has rules about who, and what, Google will open those doors for.
You can peruse the Google App Store Developer Policy Center to learn about the walls and locks.
I'm not saying Apple's good. I'm just saying Google's not all that unlike Apple WRT the store itself.
Um. Yes. I can also get a bucket of horse manure. All three on on the same list: "do not get."