from a British perspective, the US flag is a rebel flag
True. But history is written by the victors, and the United States defeated Great Britain in both the American Revolution and the War of 1812. The Confederate States lost its only war.
Debatable. By the time the war went on, GB was discovering that it's quite costly to fight wars abroad and much easier to walk away with some cooperation from the folks wanting to separate. Yet, Canada remained close to GB and still does. It was the same in many locations around the globe for GB. Gandhi and India benefited from trade shifting to other countries (Pakistan) and GB not seeing the benefit of maintaining direct control over India. So Gandhi and India took the opportunity to claim victory over GB. I think it was a bit more of GB not seeing the value anymore. Just like they did with the Colonies of the New World.
This is the biggest misunderstanding when it comes to not allowing uber drivers in a city. Yes, uber threatens another business model's bottom line and they are going to fight back. However, if you are a city planner and you know that you can not in any form or fashion have unlimited vehicles in a given city, then you have to limit it by charging high license fees. Secondly, the cities in question want people to utilize public transportation more because of their costs to maintain those system and their employees.
Then you can expand this to the tin foil hat folks and state that the more employees a city/state/federal has, the more control over the populace it has....but that's another discussion.
Crisis: the most overused word of the environmental movement. Nothing is ever a snag or a bump along the way that needs to be sorted out. No siree, everything is a world ending crisis. Not enough demand for recycled cardboard? OMG. it's a crisis.
Fear is a great motivator. If movements do not bring the fear into your home to have it appear right next door, no one would ever accept giving up control and decisions to others. Yeah, you can call me a tinfoil hat wearer, but deny that it's not there and true. People need to remember that it's never as bad as it seems and never as good as it appears.
Every time you read about "AI" like this and you dig into the details, you find that the programmer set up so many parameters on it that it is nothing like AI.
I'm betting this one is no different.
Incorrect AC. OI (Organic Intelligence) has boundaries and parameters, so will AI. You can't escape it. Physics means there are limitations to all things in the physical world. Even an AI controlled one. With out rules, there would be no way to accomplish anything.
As for the posting that is referenced, I understand these games of chance which are similar to any other (poker, flipping coins, slot machines, etc all are based on a probability/chance framework). If an AI system designs the probability cards, then it would also be able to calculate the best sequence of cards to own or use to win the game, if that is your goal.
So after the AI creates the game of chance and provides the best sequence to win (or increase your probability to win), what was the point exactly?
Why shouldn't hybrid and electric owners pay for the roads they use?
We're fine with that as soon as gas cars start paying for health care costs related to pollution as well as middle eastern wars, fracking induced earthquakes and all their other externalities.
Agreed. Don't forget about all those batteries that will need disposing of in the near future.
6....and actually, these trucks will be manned; self-driving trucks without drivers are still well into the future. Likely, those won't even have cabs, and perhaps the trailers will also be redesigned to be harder to get into.
Agreed. It's not to fully eliminate drivers (a false sense of security), but to replace highly paid drivers with high school grads who can push a button with red for stop and green for go. Much in the same way there will be pilot-less commercial aircraft in 10 years to get us around. It's all about cost savings, centralized control, maximizing equipment investment (24 hour run times), and safety (fewer accidents = fewer law suits).
The days of having employees in larger numbers performing repetitive actions are soon to be gone.
Good luck getting a penny in compensation out of the corporations responsible if this happens.
They are already smart enough to use shell corporations to do the drilling -- by the time water contamination or triggered earthquakes are discovered, the shell company is long done and a new one has taken its place.
There is plenty of blame to go around. Townships, Counties, States, Cities, all require permits and licensing of some kind before drilling begins and they are supposed to monitor said drilling. Hell, I can't cut down one sapling on my own property without permits from the county and state (proximity to water). The purpose of the permits is to limit and control land/water usage (regardless of property ownership rights). So if you want to blame anyone, start with the ones issuing the permits.
All the doom-n-gloomers miss what's really going on. AI isn't taking over - we're redesigning ourselves. Once viable non-biological emulation of our existing mind becomes possible, people will choose to migrate themselves onto that. Humans will upgrade. The end of biology will be a matter of consumer preference.
And how do you know you are not there right now?
Biological or not, the same problems would exist at that point. Survival would still be the driving force. Therefore there would be battles for energy and materials. No difference, except for perhaps timeline.
Has there been a wind sustainability study for future use with the climate changing? I mean it's been stated that there will be rain in places where there is no rain now. And rainy places will have drought in the future. So where are the wind models at for the future? I'm sure there are graphs and pretty pictures for us simpletons. And with these studies, by harvesting the wind (slowing it down, redirecting, etc) how does will that affect the ecosystem at large?
Now I'm being a bit facetious, but it should be a study for science. For example, there is x wind on the Earth, you slow down x to y, what are the results? If we are talking about invisible gasses in to the air, that could appear simplistic, but science has proven otherwise. So slowing down the Earth's wind patterns could have long term damaging effects on the Earth. Just as scooping up photons and keeping them from reaching the Earth's surface.
It's politics who's trying to use science (or far more frequently trying to deny science), not the other way around.
Here's science : our climate is changing and that change is mainly (and probably exclusively) the result of human activities. What politicians or anyone with a political agenda do with that scientific knowledge has nothing to do with science.
Don't think so small. Many folks have agendas. Schools, politicians, scientists, news shows, etc. And said folks will collaborate to ensure continuation of their agenda. Here's a clue......watch where the money flows. (this qualifies for whatever side of the fence you are on).
See how you even try to lead the reader to give credibility to your view? First you say for fact that your statement is science, but give no source. You then lead the reader to your hypothesis that it's all humans that are the exclusive cause for the climate to change. This is subjective science. And that's the problem and gives the ability on both sides to massage the data to suit their needs.
Frankly when it comes to such divisive topics, I always think that the truth is more in the middle of the data floating around.
Where'd you get that idea? Most power is used in the middle of the day, when it's hot and everyone turns on their A/C. Solar produces the most power right in the middle of the day, when the sun is shining brightest. Solar is perfect for supplying peak loads in places where people use A/C.
1. Hydro 2. Nuclear 3. Geothermal. 1 and 3 are location limted.
2 is location limited too: you can't put nuclear close to a fault line, in a place where there's tornadoes or hurricanes, and you generally need to put it next to a river for cooling though you can also use giant cooling towers. And of course, you can't put it anywhere near a metro area.
A. You forgot about solar being affected by the highest total of those green house gasses (H2O). B. Nuclear plants are designed to handle a F5 tornado
The wealthy pay more then their fair share. As does the middle class. Your mortgage interest that you write off on your taxes is considered a tax break. That interest money is gone out of your pocket one way or another. Either to the Govt (fed, state, local) or to an item that is then calculated as a tax break (charity, mortgage, business expense, etc).
This may be more of an over simplification of the process, but it is what it is. The reality is people are the problem. Stop complaining and trying to fight issues you can't change and don't affect you. Put your head down and go to work. And keep working. And keep working. Start at the bottom and make yourself better. Start a business, take a risk for once in your life. For as many wealthy folks that exist, many of them have gone bankrupt one or multiple times. Would you be willing to put that kind of risk in and still go to work? Or quit, start complaining, and looking for hand outs from someone else who worked and sacrificed for their gains?
You are close x0ra. Those activists are doing the best job possible for the oil/NG/coal industry that they can. I'm sure there is some back door funding going on since it supports the elimination of the oil/NG/coal competition.
Agreed. That is where the test has to be equal on all parts. Increase water, and some plants will die and others will thrive. Increase nitrogen and some plants will die and some will thrive. So by increasing CO2 in a feild of certain plants can determine if CO2 increases planet wide that the effect will be predictable? I think not. The key is how the tests were constructed and conducted. I think there needs to be a clearer test for this hypothesis.
Be a denier, or be a believer. If you read this from the source itself, tell me if it makes any scientific sense at all. I believe in science. The problem is there are too many idiots in the mix that confuse actual facts.
If you build your employer a piece of software that ends up making hundreds of millions of dollars wouldn't you feel entitled to some of that wealth?
No. You utilized their assets to build said software, charged them money, and agreed to it. Deal with it. Just because you lacked the vision to see that software making piles of cash, don't blame others because they have bigger vision then you do.
Sorry, but discrimination is discrimination. There is no direction. It either takes place or it doesn't. Using the term reverse gives advantage and power to one group over another.
So would you argue that affirmative action and hiring/acceptance quotas are discrimination since they put a higher value on some races than they do others?
At some point they become discrimination and defeatist in nature to everyone involved with society. But I am also a realist, and understand that at one point there was a need to have these practices in place in the U.S. And I think that they will still exist in some form or another, but not enforced. There are many industries in the US who's work force is not diversified at all or are becoming of one particular background.
What is a proper percentage of bodies of a particular ethnic background/gender/sexual preference/religious preference is a company to have? Is it guided by local community, state community, country population, or world population?
Frankly, I could care less. This is still the U.S. and if you can't work for someone, go start your own business and fight for your business. Life is not fair. The sooner you accept that and move on, the happier you will be.
Slashdot Mirror
Who here trust Cisco?
Your bank.
from a British perspective, the US flag is a rebel flag
True. But history is written by the victors, and the United States defeated Great Britain in both the American Revolution and the War of 1812. The Confederate States lost its only war.
Debatable. By the time the war went on, GB was discovering that it's quite costly to fight wars abroad and much easier to walk away with some cooperation from the folks wanting to separate. Yet, Canada remained close to GB and still does. It was the same in many locations around the globe for GB. Gandhi and India benefited from trade shifting to other countries (Pakistan) and GB not seeing the benefit of maintaining direct control over India. So Gandhi and India took the opportunity to claim victory over GB. I think it was a bit more of GB not seeing the value anymore. Just like they did with the Colonies of the New World.
This is the biggest misunderstanding when it comes to not allowing uber drivers in a city. Yes, uber threatens another business model's bottom line and they are going to fight back. However, if you are a city planner and you know that you can not in any form or fashion have unlimited vehicles in a given city, then you have to limit it by charging high license fees. Secondly, the cities in question want people to utilize public transportation more because of their costs to maintain those system and their employees.
Then you can expand this to the tin foil hat folks and state that the more employees a city/state/federal has, the more control over the populace it has....but that's another discussion.
then we are talking about a nationwide crisis,
Crisis: the most overused word of the environmental movement. Nothing is ever a snag or a bump along the way that needs to be sorted out. No siree, everything is a world ending crisis. Not enough demand for recycled cardboard? OMG. it's a crisis.
Fear is a great motivator. If movements do not bring the fear into your home to have it appear right next door, no one would ever accept giving up control and decisions to others. Yeah, you can call me a tinfoil hat wearer, but deny that it's not there and true. People need to remember that it's never as bad as it seems and never as good as it appears.
Every time you read about "AI" like this and you dig into the details, you find that the programmer set up so many parameters on it that it is nothing like AI.
I'm betting this one is no different.
Incorrect AC. OI (Organic Intelligence) has boundaries and parameters, so will AI. You can't escape it. Physics means there are limitations to all things in the physical world. Even an AI controlled one. With out rules, there would be no way to accomplish anything.
As for the posting that is referenced, I understand these games of chance which are similar to any other (poker, flipping coins, slot machines, etc all are based on a probability/chance framework). If an AI system designs the probability cards, then it would also be able to calculate the best sequence of cards to own or use to win the game, if that is your goal.
So after the AI creates the game of chance and provides the best sequence to win (or increase your probability to win), what was the point exactly?
Is the one you create.....Start your own business. Even if it's a failure financially, it will be a success long term.
Your comment is probably going to upset a few people, and will be modded down. "Pay no attention to the batteries!"
I know. These are the same folks who bitch up a storm about climate deniers not having logic, yet when it comes to energy no logic is to be applied.
There is absolutely no free energy.
Solar cells require manufacturing with all kinds of toxic mixes. So skip the sun being free energy.
Why shouldn't hybrid and electric owners pay for the roads they use?
We're fine with that as soon as gas cars start paying for health care costs related to pollution as well as middle eastern wars, fracking induced earthquakes and all their other externalities.
Agreed. Don't forget about all those batteries that will need disposing of in the near future.
Aquaman is a warm blooded fish.
Or you can put on your tin foil hat with the following scenario that is taking place.
Discredit all local/state jurisdictions and abolish them.
Put in place a national police force that is under control of the fed.
6. ...and actually, these trucks will be manned; self-driving trucks without drivers are still well into the future. Likely, those won't even have cabs, and perhaps the trailers will also be redesigned to be harder to get into.
Agreed. It's not to fully eliminate drivers (a false sense of security), but to replace highly paid drivers with high school grads who can push a button with red for stop and green for go. Much in the same way there will be pilot-less commercial aircraft in 10 years to get us around. It's all about cost savings, centralized control, maximizing equipment investment (24 hour run times), and safety (fewer accidents = fewer law suits).
The days of having employees in larger numbers performing repetitive actions are soon to be gone.
Good luck getting a penny in compensation out of the corporations responsible if this happens.
They are already smart enough to use shell corporations to do the drilling -- by the time water contamination or triggered earthquakes are discovered, the shell company is long done and a new one has taken its place.
There is plenty of blame to go around. Townships, Counties, States, Cities, all require permits and licensing of some kind before drilling begins and they are supposed to monitor said drilling. Hell, I can't cut down one sapling on my own property without permits from the county and state (proximity to water). The purpose of the permits is to limit and control land/water usage (regardless of property ownership rights). So if you want to blame anyone, start with the ones issuing the permits.
All the doom-n-gloomers miss what's really going on. AI isn't taking over - we're redesigning ourselves. Once viable non-biological emulation of our existing mind becomes possible, people will choose to migrate themselves onto that. Humans will upgrade. The end of biology will be a matter of consumer preference.
And how do you know you are not there right now?
Biological or not, the same problems would exist at that point. Survival would still be the driving force. Therefore there would be battles for energy and materials. No difference, except for perhaps timeline.
Has there been a wind sustainability study for future use with the climate changing? I mean it's been stated that there will be rain in places where there is no rain now. And rainy places will have drought in the future. So where are the wind models at for the future? I'm sure there are graphs and pretty pictures for us simpletons. And with these studies, by harvesting the wind (slowing it down, redirecting, etc) how does will that affect the ecosystem at large?
Now I'm being a bit facetious, but it should be a study for science. For example, there is x wind on the Earth, you slow down x to y, what are the results? If we are talking about invisible gasses in to the air, that could appear simplistic, but science has proven otherwise. So slowing down the Earth's wind patterns could have long term damaging effects on the Earth. Just as scooping up photons and keeping them from reaching the Earth's surface.
Climate change means temps go up and temps can go down. Drought happens, and heavy rains happen. That is the climate changing for sure.
Don't be surprised when the next ice age hits. Weather is all about change. The question is how quickly humans adapt or not.
It's politics who's trying to use science (or far more frequently trying to deny science), not the other way around.
Here's science : our climate is changing and that change is mainly (and probably exclusively) the result of human activities. What politicians or anyone with a political agenda do with that scientific knowledge has nothing to do with science.
Don't think so small. Many folks have agendas. Schools, politicians, scientists, news shows, etc. And said folks will collaborate to ensure continuation of their agenda. Here's a clue......watch where the money flows. (this qualifies for whatever side of the fence you are on).
See how you even try to lead the reader to give credibility to your view? First you say for fact that your statement is science, but give no source. You then lead the reader to your hypothesis that it's all humans that are the exclusive cause for the climate to change. This is subjective science. And that's the problem and gives the ability on both sides to massage the data to suit their needs.
Frankly when it comes to such divisive topics, I always think that the truth is more in the middle of the data floating around.
yes trees can do that.
One tree provides shade in the desert, to cover the floor of the desert, you'd need a forest. But then it wouldn't be a desert anymore.
First Solar only does photovoltaics, so no birds will be incinerated.
Great. So all the desert critters will be displaced and in constant shade. And all the predator birds that hunt said critters will starve.
Where'd you get that idea? Most power is used in the middle of the day, when it's hot and everyone turns on their A/C. Solar produces the most power right in the middle of the day, when the sun is shining brightest. Solar is perfect for supplying peak loads in places where people use A/C.
1. Hydro
2. Nuclear
3. Geothermal.
1 and 3 are location limted.
2 is location limited too: you can't put nuclear close to a fault line, in a place where there's tornadoes or hurricanes, and you generally need to put it next to a river for cooling though you can also use giant cooling towers. And of course, you can't put it anywhere near a metro area.
A. You forgot about solar being affected by the highest total of those green house gasses (H2O).
B. Nuclear plants are designed to handle a F5 tornado
The wealthy pay more then their fair share. As does the middle class. Your mortgage interest that you write off on your taxes is considered a tax break. That interest money is gone out of your pocket one way or another. Either to the Govt (fed, state, local) or to an item that is then calculated as a tax break (charity, mortgage, business expense, etc).
This may be more of an over simplification of the process, but it is what it is. The reality is people are the problem. Stop complaining and trying to fight issues you can't change and don't affect you. Put your head down and go to work. And keep working. And keep working. Start at the bottom and make yourself better. Start a business, take a risk for once in your life. For as many wealthy folks that exist, many of them have gone bankrupt one or multiple times. Would you be willing to put that kind of risk in and still go to work? Or quit, start complaining, and looking for hand outs from someone else who worked and sacrificed for their gains?
You are close x0ra. Those activists are doing the best job possible for the oil/NG/coal industry that they can. I'm sure there is some back door funding going on since it supports the elimination of the oil/NG/coal competition.
Agreed. That is where the test has to be equal on all parts. Increase water, and some plants will die and others will thrive. Increase nitrogen and some plants will die and some will thrive. So by increasing CO2 in a feild of certain plants can determine if CO2 increases planet wide that the effect will be predictable? I think not. The key is how the tests were constructed and conducted. I think there needs to be a clearer test for this hypothesis.
Be a denier, or be a believer. If you read this from the source itself, tell me if it makes any scientific sense at all. I believe in science. The problem is there are too many idiots in the mix that confuse actual facts.
http://www.climatecentral.org/...
If you build your employer a piece of software that ends up making hundreds of millions of dollars wouldn't you feel entitled to some of that wealth?
No. You utilized their assets to build said software, charged them money, and agreed to it. Deal with it. Just because you lacked the vision to see that software making piles of cash, don't blame others because they have bigger vision then you do.
Reverse discrimination.
Sorry, but discrimination is discrimination. There is no direction. It either takes place or it doesn't. Using the term reverse gives advantage and power to one group over another.
So would you argue that affirmative action and hiring/acceptance quotas are discrimination since they put a higher value on some races than they do others?
At some point they become discrimination and defeatist in nature to everyone involved with society. But I am also a realist, and understand that at one point there was a need to have these practices in place in the U.S. And I think that they will still exist in some form or another, but not enforced. There are many industries in the US who's work force is not diversified at all or are becoming of one particular background.
What is a proper percentage of bodies of a particular ethnic background/gender/sexual preference/religious preference is a company to have? Is it guided by local community, state community, country population, or world population?
Frankly, I could care less. This is still the U.S. and if you can't work for someone, go start your own business and fight for your business. Life is not fair. The sooner you accept that and move on, the happier you will be.