And we're now voting on whether to shut the barn door.
No, we're voting on whether we ever had a horse in the first place. Later we're going to have a vote on whether we wanted the horse out of the barn, and if the barn is better off without it.
We aren't going to vote on closing the door for a looooong time.
Many people don't realize just how few classical texts actually have survived. The total volume of ancient Latin and Greek texts we have available to us is probably a little less than the volume of a middle school library. There are dozens of famous classical authors who we only know of from references by other authors, as none of their work survives. The chance to have new literature from that world, untouched by translation or transcription, is incredible.
I was ready to dismiss your comment, because who doesn't want better space technology? But it got me thinking, what happens when private space industry does start reaching or exceeding what the government can provide? Will the government have to bow out so as to not make the market "uncompetitive"? As much as I want to see private investment in better space technology, I don't want to see it entirely removed from the public sector.
When you say "do something", you mean do something like publicly announce the problem so that the industry as a whole can look for a solution? Would that be using his "position and pull"? If not what do you mean, exactly?
But the thing is plea bargaining is not a fundamental piece, it has only gained prominence in the last 100 years, and was popularized to handle the enormous amount of "crime" that prohibition created. We now recognize that the underlying cause of much of this crime - Prohibition - was bad law, so why are we clinging to plea bargaining? Probably because we are still clinging to prohibition, just in a different fashion.
Probably lower orbits. GPS are in medium orbit, which is still pretty expensive compared to LEO. Also Consider they might be able to use their own launch systems, which would only be able to make LEO in the near future. If you are using lower orbits, you need many more satellites to ensure coverage.
Once again, you have it absolutely backwards. Here, maybe a quote will help:
He'll write to the Federal Communications Commission urging the agency to help neutralize laws, erected by states, that effectively protect large established Internet providers against the threat represented by cities that want to build and offer their own, municipal Internet service. He'll direct federal agencies to expand grants and loans for these projects and for smaller, rural Internet providers.
I will try to break it down. Currently, there are small communities that want to build their own internet infrastructure, like you are talking about. In many cases they cannot, because state laws prevent them, essentially giving monopolies to big ISPs. Obama wants to have the FCC fight those state laws, so the communities can build their own infrastructure. See how this is different than what you are saying? Obama wants them to build out their infrastructure.
Maybe it would help if you imagine that he is a socialist, what would a socialist do in this situation?
Who taught you civics? The Justice department is, and always has been, part of the executive branch. The attorney general is a cabinet member and serves at the pleasure of the president. It has been this way since the dept was founded in the late 1800s as a way to coordinate US attorneys (not judges) Judges = Judicial branch, Attorneys and Police = Executive branch.
As for not carrying out judicial orders, this has been a thing at least since Andrew Jackson said "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" in 1832.
How did you somehow read the article and come to believe exactly the opposite of what it says? Like, really, the exact opposite: TFA clearly states he is trying to promote public broadband construction by striking down state laws that prevent municipalities from owning networks. There is nothing in there about giving ISPs anything.
I feel the time is fast approaching when there is no difference between RAM and storage, and when that happens it will set the stage for a quantum leap in programming. Not only will it eliminate the ever-present need to shuttle back and forth to some slow long term storage media to retrieve this or that, but it will change the assumption that a program being run is inherently different than one that is stored. I believe the fusion of the two will bring about some revolutionary concepts.
On the flip side Brazil frequently has a positive balance of trade, something the US hasn't had in a long time. In fact many of the countries with highly positive balances of trade are protectionist in outlook. Not to say that's necessarily the best policy but it is something to think about.
It seems like there was already a pretty established body of theory on limit Hold-em by players. I wonder if there are any interesting ideas that will be proved or disproved by this bot.
"And the award for most contrived example goes to...." I kid, I kid.
But seriously, how many human drivers would pass your test? I'd imagine they're do worse that the automated cars by a long shot. Here's why: a human driver in your example is going to to be overwhelmed with information as soon as the snowboarder appears, in this confusion they are likely to forget the dangers of swerving right or left.
In contrast, the machine does not become overwhelmed. The world passes very, very slowly to it. What does it see? Everything in your example, but in a simplified context. It sees the guardrail. The guardrail is a known item to it, it signifies danger. It cannot cross the guardrail. It sees the truck in the other lane, it is a large object and moving quickly, it cannot move into the path of this object. There is a new object in the road, an object that maybe be a person or animal. It may have to collide with this object. It begins to apply the brakes in a controlled fashion, and lightly impacts the snowboarder. All because it wasn't driving 60mph on an icy mountain road like a goddamn idiot.
Most of the non-RO plants are adding ozonation to the treatment, which does a pretty good job of oxidizing pharmaceutical waste if used properly. I used to work in a system that processed a lot of secondhand water, so it was a particular concern of ours.
The use of batteries in those cars is impossible at large scale for all sorts of reasons
That is a terribly overreaching statement. Perhaps "We currently do not have the capacity to produce the number of batteries necessary using existing processes and sources in a way that is economically feasible" would be better.
I think it's mostly a problem of sites repeating each other. So much of the web is just aggregators aggregating other aggregators, adding nothing of value. From the traditional search perspective they look extremely relevant, since they're all in agreement, when in reality they are all equally useless.
Um, why wouldn't they need coal? I'm assuming they're still using electricity, no? I mean we are using billions of tons of coal a year in our "advanced" society, and most likely will for the foreseeable future, why would they be different? The other districts seem pretty plausible to me, centered around things like nuclear fuel and agriculture,
I'm curious why you find the situation unlikely, when it seem to follow a pattern that is pretty well established in reality, whether it be the Banana Republics, King Leopold in the Congo, or actual Appalachia.
I'll take a crack at this, if someone is in the industry correct me.
Imagine two airline hubs, A and C. Between them is a smaller regional airport B.
Travel between the hubs (Let's use A to C for example) is cheap, relatively speaking, because of the constant demand. The airlines know their flights will always be full, so they can (and must) reduce their prices to a minimum. There is also demand for travel from A to B, and B to C, but it is not necessarily enough to fill a plane. Flying half empty planes is a huge expense, so in order to service this demand, the airline can allow a portion of its A to C traffic to route through B at a discounted rate. These travelers are flying essentially at cost for the airline. This is possible because the higher prices paid by the A to B and B to C travelers will make the profit. The problem comes in that if the A to B regional travelers try to hide in with the A to C crowd, the airline will have to raise the price of the B to C crowd even more if they want to continue flying the route. (They can't raise the A to C price as then nobody would accept the layover and would fly direct instead) Not to mention they are losing opportunities to transport people from B to C, if planes are leaving with seats occupied by phantom travelers.
Slashdot Mirror
No, we're voting on whether we ever had a horse in the first place. Later we're going to have a vote on whether we wanted the horse out of the barn, and if the barn is better off without it.
We aren't going to vote on closing the door for a looooong time.
Many people don't realize just how few classical texts actually have survived. The total volume of ancient Latin and Greek texts we have available to us is probably a little less than the volume of a middle school library. There are dozens of famous classical authors who we only know of from references by other authors, as none of their work survives. The chance to have new literature from that world, untouched by translation or transcription, is incredible.
I was ready to dismiss your comment, because who doesn't want better space technology? But it got me thinking, what happens when private space industry does start reaching or exceeding what the government can provide? Will the government have to bow out so as to not make the market "uncompetitive"? As much as I want to see private investment in better space technology, I don't want to see it entirely removed from the public sector.
When you say "do something", you mean do something like publicly announce the problem so that the industry as a whole can look for a solution? Would that be using his "position and pull"? If not what do you mean, exactly?
But the thing is plea bargaining is not a fundamental piece, it has only gained prominence in the last 100 years, and was popularized to handle the enormous amount of "crime" that prohibition created. We now recognize that the underlying cause of much of this crime - Prohibition - was bad law, so why are we clinging to plea bargaining? Probably because we are still clinging to prohibition, just in a different fashion.
Probably lower orbits. GPS are in medium orbit, which is still pretty expensive compared to LEO. Also Consider they might be able to use their own launch systems, which would only be able to make LEO in the near future. If you are using lower orbits, you need many more satellites to ensure coverage.
I couldn't believe it last fall when I saw a Radio Shack grand opening in DC. I should have taken a picture.
I will try to break it down. Currently, there are small communities that want to build their own internet infrastructure, like you are talking about. In many cases they cannot, because state laws prevent them, essentially giving monopolies to big ISPs. Obama wants to have the FCC fight those state laws, so the communities can build their own infrastructure. See how this is different than what you are saying? Obama wants them to build out their infrastructure.
Maybe it would help if you imagine that he is a socialist, what would a socialist do in this situation?
As for not carrying out judicial orders, this has been a thing at least since Andrew Jackson said "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" in 1832.
How did you somehow read the article and come to believe exactly the opposite of what it says? Like, really, the exact opposite: TFA clearly states he is trying to promote public broadband construction by striking down state laws that prevent municipalities from owning networks. There is nothing in there about giving ISPs anything.
I'm curious what is going to happen when the Chinese don't want, or can't afford, any US debt.
I feel the time is fast approaching when there is no difference between RAM and storage, and when that happens it will set the stage for a quantum leap in programming. Not only will it eliminate the ever-present need to shuttle back and forth to some slow long term storage media to retrieve this or that, but it will change the assumption that a program being run is inherently different than one that is stored. I believe the fusion of the two will bring about some revolutionary concepts.
What in the world are you talking about??
I almost modded this funny, thinking it was a parody. Is the spam becoming aware of it's surroundings?
On the flip side Brazil frequently has a positive balance of trade, something the US hasn't had in a long time. In fact many of the countries with highly positive balances of trade are protectionist in outlook. Not to say that's necessarily the best policy but it is something to think about.
It seems like there was already a pretty established body of theory on limit Hold-em by players. I wonder if there are any interesting ideas that will be proved or disproved by this bot.
It's ozone-treated, the ozone dissociates within a half-hour at most. You don't drink it while the ozone is still in it, that would be stupid.
"And the award for most contrived example goes to...." I kid, I kid.
But seriously, how many human drivers would pass your test? I'd imagine they're do worse that the automated cars by a long shot. Here's why: a human driver in your example is going to to be overwhelmed with information as soon as the snowboarder appears, in this confusion they are likely to forget the dangers of swerving right or left.
In contrast, the machine does not become overwhelmed. The world passes very, very slowly to it. What does it see? Everything in your example, but in a simplified context. It sees the guardrail. The guardrail is a known item to it, it signifies danger. It cannot cross the guardrail. It sees the truck in the other lane, it is a large object and moving quickly, it cannot move into the path of this object. There is a new object in the road, an object that maybe be a person or animal. It may have to collide with this object. It begins to apply the brakes in a controlled fashion, and lightly impacts the snowboarder. All because it wasn't driving 60mph on an icy mountain road like a goddamn idiot.
Most of the non-RO plants are adding ozonation to the treatment, which does a pretty good job of oxidizing pharmaceutical waste if used properly. I used to work in a system that processed a lot of secondhand water, so it was a particular concern of ours.
Locking isn't even necessary, when the charger is removed it ends the transaction. Done.
That is a terribly overreaching statement. Perhaps "We currently do not have the capacity to produce the number of batteries necessary using existing processes and sources in a way that is economically feasible" would be better.
I think it's mostly a problem of sites repeating each other. So much of the web is just aggregators aggregating other aggregators, adding nothing of value. From the traditional search perspective they look extremely relevant, since they're all in agreement, when in reality they are all equally useless.
Did you actually just say "it's not my job to educate you"? I thought the only people who said that were on tumblr.
Um, why wouldn't they need coal? I'm assuming they're still using electricity, no? I mean we are using billions of tons of coal a year in our "advanced" society, and most likely will for the foreseeable future, why would they be different? The other districts seem pretty plausible to me, centered around things like nuclear fuel and agriculture,
I'm curious why you find the situation unlikely, when it seem to follow a pattern that is pretty well established in reality, whether it be the Banana Republics, King Leopold in the Congo, or actual Appalachia.
I'll take a crack at this, if someone is in the industry correct me.
Imagine two airline hubs, A and C. Between them is a smaller regional airport B.
Travel between the hubs (Let's use A to C for example) is cheap, relatively speaking, because of the constant demand. The airlines know their flights will always be full, so they can (and must) reduce their prices to a minimum. There is also demand for travel from A to B, and B to C, but it is not necessarily enough to fill a plane. Flying half empty planes is a huge expense, so in order to service this demand, the airline can allow a portion of its A to C traffic to route through B at a discounted rate. These travelers are flying essentially at cost for the airline. This is possible because the higher prices paid by the A to B and B to C travelers will make the profit. The problem comes in that if the A to B regional travelers try to hide in with the A to C crowd, the airline will have to raise the price of the B to C crowd even more if they want to continue flying the route. (They can't raise the A to C price as then nobody would accept the layover and would fly direct instead) Not to mention they are losing opportunities to transport people from B to C, if planes are leaving with seats occupied by phantom travelers.