While the chances of this thing actually working is very slim, it is a very smart move to fund this sort of thing. At a million euros a pop, you can afford to fund a awful lot of projects that goes no where in order to find the diamond in the rough.
But it also create a conflict of interest, as their funding would depend on the perception that global warming is human caused. Surveying past researchers may give better results.
One can easily add the condition that they must do complex things that people in the field would be expected to do. That is, the ability to put on a bandage does not mean anything, but if you were able to magically cure cancer, then, yes, you would be a doctor regardless of how much medical school training you have.
I don't think that is a problem - the nice part about computer programs is that they are not exactly hard to duplicate. You can just keep trying until one is willing to program better AIs.
It is also possible that the company depends on him working his tail off to worth a lot more. They might think that he would work a lot harder if he gets the 10% stake in the company.
Consider the following: a single family can spend a large portion of their entire nations gdp by themselves in those days. Bill Gates don't spend anywhere near a percentage of GDP.
You could simply have everything decided by referendum, and permit the convicts to vote. As soon as it start stepping on a large number of people, then it will be gone in no time at all.
Ah... But if there are no privacy what so ever, it will be impossible to take things out of context, wouldn't it? As the context would also be out in the open....
On the other hand, if you have some gene that would make you healthier then average (which must exist, or else there could be no genes that make you less healthy then average), then you might be able to get insurance at a discounted rate. Like wise for business hiring - if you have the genes that makes you an excellent worker, then you are more likely to be hired.
By definition, the expected value for you in the test results breaks even. Thus, it is not a bad idea to get tested if you are curious about what you have or not have.
However, oil's decline will most likely take a long time. In the mean time, coal will supply as much power as we need for about 50 to 100 years. Nukes is easily build able in that time frame. By the time that we run out of nukes sometimes in the 3000s, one can hope that we either perfected fusion, or at least managed to get more efficient/cheaper solar panels up and running.
I think the main problem is that I really don't see using 99.99% of our energy to generate energy as a problem. We have around 3,850,000 EJ of energy coming from the sun. Even if we spend 99% of that energy on harvesting that energy, we still get 385EJ of useful energy. Our consumption is on the order of 50 EJ.
Slashdot Mirror
Canada and Mexico was never nuked. (Yes, I know that you were referring to japan, but they are hardly a neighboring country)
the joke here is that if this was on the actual iphone, the spell correct would have figured it out.
Insightful? No such thing happened - is fear mongering insightful now?
That is a false choice - just because a certain amount of privacy is not important does not mean that all privacy is unimportant.
While the chances of this thing actually working is very slim, it is a very smart move to fund this sort of thing. At a million euros a pop, you can afford to fund a awful lot of projects that goes no where in order to find the diamond in the rough.
So explain why the presidents and senators that we got before direct election were considerably worse then what we got afterwards.
But it also create a conflict of interest, as their funding would depend on the perception that global warming is human caused. Surveying past researchers may give better results.
But paying for the window presumably detracted your standard of living.
One can easily add the condition that they must do complex things that people in the field would be expected to do. That is, the ability to put on a bandage does not mean anything, but if you were able to magically cure cancer, then, yes, you would be a doctor regardless of how much medical school training you have.
The likelihood of false positive goes DOWN with additional information assuming the rate of false negative is held constant.
Why would they have desire for porn at all?
The worst that can happen is that they screw up and you die much sooner then you otherwise would.
I don't think that is a problem - the nice part about computer programs is that they are not exactly hard to duplicate. You can just keep trying until one is willing to program better AIs.
Their right to eat, for example?
It is also possible that the company depends on him working his tail off to worth a lot more. They might think that he would work a lot harder if he gets the 10% stake in the company.
Consider the following: a single family can spend a large portion of their entire nations gdp by themselves in those days. Bill Gates don't spend anywhere near a percentage of GDP.
You could simply have everything decided by referendum, and permit the convicts to vote. As soon as it start stepping on a large number of people, then it will be gone in no time at all.
Ah... But if there are no privacy what so ever, it will be impossible to take things out of context, wouldn't it? As the context would also be out in the open....
Truth be told, equality was preserved under those laws. Equality is merely a necessary condition for justice, not a sufficient condition.
Ah, so they end up hiring the either the balanced or the intelligent. Not a bad end for them.
Medicare have been very efficient, so far, much more efficient then private insurance.
On the other hand, if you have some gene that would make you healthier then average (which must exist, or else there could be no genes that make you less healthy then average), then you might be able to get insurance at a discounted rate. Like wise for business hiring - if you have the genes that makes you an excellent worker, then you are more likely to be hired.
By definition, the expected value for you in the test results breaks even. Thus, it is not a bad idea to get tested if you are curious about what you have or not have.
However, oil's decline will most likely take a long time. In the mean time, coal will supply as much power as we need for about 50 to 100 years. Nukes is easily build able in that time frame. By the time that we run out of nukes sometimes in the 3000s, one can hope that we either perfected fusion, or at least managed to get more efficient/cheaper solar panels up and running.
I think the main problem is that I really don't see using 99.99% of our energy to generate energy as a problem. We have around 3,850,000 EJ of energy coming from the sun. Even if we spend 99% of that energy on harvesting that energy, we still get 385EJ of useful energy. Our consumption is on the order of 50 EJ.
quite frankly, one plane every 20 or so years is not going permit any company to be lazy.