> Nuclear is so much safer and less polluting than any alternative, including those holiest-of-holy "renewables" that I'd call what so-called environmentalists do outright sabotage
Reducing consumption is safer, cheaper, easier, less polluting, and better in every meaningful way.
We're nowhere close to any lower limit on energy use that would affect anyone's quality of life. Lowering consumption would likely raise most people's quality of life for getting them to think about what they do more.
It costs no extra time or money to bring a bag with you to the store to avoid getting new ones.
Reducing consumption and reusing things you have saves money.
Maybe it's not that your poverty is causing you to waste but that your waste is causing your poverty. In any case, why not reduce and reuse to save time and money if you aren't already?
"The IRS is now engaging in data mining of public and commercial data pools (including social media) and creating highly detailed profiles of taxpayers upon which to run data analytics" (30 words)
Removing redundancy, complex structures, etc:
The IRS profiles taxpayers by mining data, including social media, then analyzes the profiles. (14 words).
> The idea that you can beat the differential equations describing large population dynamics with trying to convince individuals is preposterous to begin with.
Since the equations playing out most likely leads to overshoot and collapse of human population through pestilence, war, and famine, to far lower than it is now, in a polluted world, possibly unable to sustain modern society, and that many populations have sustained populations in equilibrium, it seems worth trying to replicate their success.
The Nash equilibrium of a prisoners' dilemma is that everyone defects. This game isn't exactly a prisoners' dilemma, but the equilibrium is that everyone builds the robots. A ban won't change the nature of the game. It may partly solve it, but not completely.
Political leaders need only tell their constituents that building the robots saves their lives and that the other side will do it even if they don't.
Jonathan Swift had a modest proposal that could solve environmental problems, animal cruelty, and overpopulation... and provide tasty burgers, or other most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout.
> You've obviously never gotten lost on a wikipedia excursion. After a few hours not only do you find things you had no clue existed, you find things you would have never wanted to know about.
The companies' managers and shareholders are responsible for their behavior, but we, the people who buy their stuff and elect the officials who could legislate some of their behavior, are still responsible for our behavior.
I always expected to see the year of GNU/Linux on the desktop before seeing the year of it on Microsoft, but I'll take it.
Next, I'd love to see Richard Stallman having dinner with Bill Gates. I believe I have a vivid imagination, but I can't imagine how that dinner would go.
The rest of the world could learn from their example and allow the earth's population to drop naturally.
Instead everyone falls back on knee-jerk beliefs that
- We need exponentially growing economies, which require exponentially growing populations, which are impossible to sustain on a finite planet
- Going to Mars will somehow alleviate overpopulation on Earth
- Populations are leveling off, which isn't related to the problem that we are over the planet's carrying capacity, drawing down and depleting resources
- Too few young people won't be able to support older ones, despite increases in productivity that allow 2% of the population to do what used to take 25%, to use the example of farming
- Lowering the population means eugenics or racism
- Human nature [insert opinion about human nature]
- Fusion or some other technology will save us (without population control it extends the overshoot leading to collapse)
- etc
All of the above beliefs are demonstrably wrong. There's no reason we can't allow the population to decrease without hurting anyone or any economy by simply having fewer children. Everyone would live in a world of more abundance per person. There would be as much culture as before and the species' chances of survival would increase.
The challenge is doing it. Step one is disabusing ourselves of the above beliefs.
> Unless you count this as a classic demonstration of Darwin's Theory
He has two kids so he's passed on his genes. He may have lowered their chances of survival somewhat, but they didn't die from this event. Evolutionarily, he has succeeded -- with two kids, probably more than most Slashdot readers.
Slashdot Mirror
You're going to need a bigger drone.
I like pencil and paper. Sometimes a pen.
Hammers, nails, screwdrivers, and such work well too.
> Nuclear is so much safer and less polluting than any alternative, including those holiest-of-holy "renewables" that I'd call what so-called environmentalists do outright sabotage
Reducing consumption is safer, cheaper, easier, less polluting, and better in every meaningful way.
We're nowhere close to any lower limit on energy use that would affect anyone's quality of life. Lowering consumption would likely raise most people's quality of life for getting them to think about what they do more.
> Do you know how much kinetic energy a moving trainset has at 200mph
African or European?
You're not making sense.
It costs no extra time or money to bring a bag with you to the store to avoid getting new ones.
Reducing consumption and reusing things you have saves money.
Maybe it's not that your poverty is causing you to waste but that your waste is causing your poverty. In any case, why not reduce and reuse to save time and money if you aren't already?
> what we really need is an educated, thoughtful, politically engaged populace
In other words, we're doomed.
"The IRS is now engaging in data mining of public and commercial data pools (including social media) and creating highly detailed profiles of taxpayers upon which to run data analytics" (30 words)
Removing redundancy, complex structures, etc:
The IRS profiles taxpayers by mining data, including social media, then analyzes the profiles. (14 words).
> It's completely reasonable for government to find out who this person is
No one questioned if they had a reason.
The issue is that their behavior is probably unconstitutional.
> The idea that you can beat the differential equations describing large population dynamics with trying to convince individuals is preposterous to begin with.
Since the equations playing out most likely leads to overshoot and collapse of human population through pestilence, war, and famine, to far lower than it is now, in a polluted world, possibly unable to sustain modern society, and that many populations have sustained populations in equilibrium, it seems worth trying to replicate their success.
The Nash equilibrium of a prisoners' dilemma is that everyone defects. This game isn't exactly a prisoners' dilemma, but the equilibrium is that everyone builds the robots. A ban won't change the nature of the game. It may partly solve it, but not completely.
Political leaders need only tell their constituents that building the robots saves their lives and that the other side will do it even if they don't.
Jonathan Swift had a modest proposal that could solve environmental problems, animal cruelty, and overpopulation... and provide tasty burgers, or other most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout.
> He wasn't trying to advance the state of neuroscience or sociology, as he is completely unqualified to do either.
You should also tell Penn dropout Elon Musk that he is "completely unqualified" to build cars and space ships.
The Public Library of Science started its first journal in 2003.
What took these editors so long?
> You've obviously never gotten lost on a wikipedia excursion. After a few hours not only do you find things you had no clue existed, you find things you would have never wanted to know about.
Wikipedia? I think you meant porn.
> John Rockefeller had an estimated net worth of $336 in 2010 dollars
I thought he had at least four hundred dollars.
> It's like vi on Linux
I also use vi for quick image editing on GNU/Linux.
> As an Australian, I have no alternative but to torrent GOT
You can not watch.
Simple solution: Amazon should just call itself a bank or an agri-business and the government will fund it getting bigger.
The companies' managers and shareholders are responsible for their behavior, but we, the people who buy their stuff and elect the officials who could legislate some of their behavior, are still responsible for our behavior.
> The last 3D movie I saw was Avatar, and my reaction to it was "..gee, that's kinda interesting"
It could have been worse. You could have heard the dialogue.
I always expected to see the year of GNU/Linux on the desktop before seeing the year of it on Microsoft, but I'll take it.
Next, I'd love to see Richard Stallman having dinner with Bill Gates. I believe I have a vivid imagination, but I can't imagine how that dinner would go.
The rest of the world could learn from their example and allow the earth's population to drop naturally.
Instead everyone falls back on knee-jerk beliefs that
- We need exponentially growing economies, which require exponentially growing populations, which are impossible to sustain on a finite planet
- Going to Mars will somehow alleviate overpopulation on Earth
- Populations are leveling off, which isn't related to the problem that we are over the planet's carrying capacity, drawing down and depleting resources
- Too few young people won't be able to support older ones, despite increases in productivity that allow 2% of the population to do what used to take 25%, to use the example of farming
- Lowering the population means eugenics or racism
- Human nature [insert opinion about human nature]
- Fusion or some other technology will save us (without population control it extends the overshoot leading to collapse)
- etc
All of the above beliefs are demonstrably wrong. There's no reason we can't allow the population to decrease without hurting anyone or any economy by simply having fewer children. Everyone would live in a world of more abundance per person. There would be as much culture as before and the species' chances of survival would increase.
The challenge is doing it. Step one is disabusing ourselves of the above beliefs.
As a New Yorker who has never used Uber, Lyft, or any other ride sharing app, I prefer
- The subway
- Buses
- The sidewalk
depending on where and how far I'm going. Yesterday I walked about five miles and shared the sidewalk with thousands of people.
I use a taxi about once a year, which I guess I could use an app for instead. Check with me again in a year and I may have used one.
> Unless you count this as a classic demonstration of Darwin's Theory
He has two kids so he's passed on his genes. He may have lowered their chances of survival somewhat, but they didn't die from this event. Evolutionarily, he has succeeded -- with two kids, probably more than most Slashdot readers.
> Did more for computing than Gates, Ellison and Jobs combined.
But less than Stallman, on whose foundation he built.