You can thank EPA emission and fleet fuel consumption guidelines, but new engines are a lot more finicky. For example, direct injection - this technology marginally improves emissions while reintroducing issues of sludge and chain failure. Synthetic 0w20 oil is also problematic - it is too thin for manufacturing tolerances and results in engine oil consumption due to blow-by past piston rings. Combine all of these issues - and I wouldn't expect any new truck to last with "change the oil every five years".
Keep point to understand is that an ability to do "a little planning" and tendency to engage in mass murders is inversely correlated for individuals acting alone.
That's a good point. Anybody who's planning to commit mass murder will surely stop when he finds out gun ownership is illegal.
Mass murder is harder without ready access to firearms. You have to steal a truck and plow it into a vulnerable crowd or turn a pressure cooker into improvised bomb and plant it in a crowded place. This requires some degree of planning, eliminating impulsive 'going postal' actions.
Except unprecedented is much stronger, it very explicitly means that it's never, ever happened before. If you can point to even a single previous instance, then it's by definition wrong to use it. And since Microsoft recently did release a patch for an EOL product, using it now is plain wrong. Nice by Microsoft, but still wrong. It also makes me wonder how well a "ten more years of security patches" upgrade for Win7 would sell...
adjective
1. without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled:
I read 'unprecedented' as 'unusual, since releasing security patches for a product that was long past EOL is unusual. Not many organizations willing to do that and MS should be commended.
It is easy to create high-quality product if cost is not constrained - just over-over engineer everything. It is making high-quality cheap goods that is difficult.
For example, making a cheap car is easy. Making a cheap car that is safe, clean, and reliable is challenging for even large manufacturers. This is why making a car like Bolt at $35K is much harder than making Tesla S at $100K.
Theresa may think that the only way to fighting radical Islam is to build a totalitarian regime, I hope voters disagree. Personally, I would rather government protect my rights than keep me safe.
Corporation just like terrorism is an idea. Corporate ownership is not really easy to trace, with shell corporations and complex offshoring structures it takes an army of forensic accountants with access to books to untangle this. Robot workforce will just show up and leave, and unless specific government is willing to outlaw all private ownership of robots it won't be effective at stopping this.
This was a reply, with relevant quote included in the post, to "They will be kept in check by governments holding monopolies on force".
The governments are not successful keeping in check any kind of modern non-government entities, from dissidents, to terrorist organization, to multinationals dodging taxes. It reasons, they won't be able to do anything about multinationals controlling highly portable robotic workforce.
Nope. They will be kept in check by governments holding monopolies on force.
How successful is China in censoring Tienanmen Square worldwide? Not at all. How long did it take to catch Dread Pirate Robers by the nation that currently represents pinnacle of force? This will get extrapolated even further difficulties applying this force as we get further intertwined with technology.
How is this any different from jobs lost to efficiency gains from software?
Very good question. First, software is very limited in what it could do by itself in a physical world. I can't write garbage collection subroutine and also expect it to take out my trash. Second, software mainly deals with data. In this way it opens new fields and creates employment. There isn't a way for me to pick up a shovel and perform a database queue, as such it isn't displacing existing work.
Robots are both universal in functionality and do not perform any new tasks. Ideal robot, something like Data from Star Trek, is designed to replace humans. Software is not.
Government relies on income and sales taxes to disproportionate degree. With robots taking over, there won't be enough money to support social programs or even local government. We will quickly get to unified world government, but it will be controlled by multinationals that own these robots.
Sanctions against US, that will inevitably will lead to retaliation, will be God's gift to Russia and China. There won't be Western Civilization left standing when this all plays out.
Yeah, fuck the future! Fuck the planet! Fuck humanity!
While I think withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord is a very bad idea, the above is a hysterical over-reaction. I am of two views about this - if direst models hold true and no technical solution exists, with or without Paris Climate Accord we are fucked by a runaway greenhouse effect. If technical solution exists, such as atmospheric filtering and pumping it into underground vaults then lack of Paris Climate Accord support will only make it more expensive in the future. Considering future is about 50 years away, this may be worthwhile tradeoff with sufficiently high IRR.
Social media as a business model has very low barriers to entry. As such, your ideas are treated as a drive-through diner for anyone bothering to compete with you.
Intelligence is heritable and we are not born equally intelligent. It is normally distributed and unless selected for results in regression to the mean in the offspring in general population.
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of other ways to accomplish the same result, many of them just as easy and effective as a gun.
Name few.
Research shows that ease of suicide is correlated to incidences. That is, easier it is to "pull the trigger" more likely it is to happen.
How about...
If you fill your engine with transmission fluid it will quickly ceases?
This move by Google likely guarantees that porn would be sufficiently duplicated to survive collapse of our civilization.
For some unknown reason, after backing up my "personal data" drive to Google, I started to get a lot of equestrian advertising.
Oil degrades with time and mileage.
You can thank EPA emission and fleet fuel consumption guidelines, but new engines are a lot more finicky. For example, direct injection - this technology marginally improves emissions while reintroducing issues of sludge and chain failure. Synthetic 0w20 oil is also problematic - it is too thin for manufacturing tolerances and results in engine oil consumption due to blow-by past piston rings. Combine all of these issues - and I wouldn't expect any new truck to last with "change the oil every five years".
Keep point to understand is that an ability to do "a little planning" and tendency to engage in mass murders is inversely correlated for individuals acting alone.
That's a good point. Anybody who's planning to commit mass murder will surely stop when he finds out gun ownership is illegal.
Mass murder is harder without ready access to firearms. You have to steal a truck and plow it into a vulnerable crowd or turn a pressure cooker into improvised bomb and plant it in a crowded place. This requires some degree of planning, eliminating impulsive 'going postal' actions.
I read 'unprecedented' as 'unusual
Except unprecedented is much stronger, it very explicitly means that it's never, ever happened before. If you can point to even a single previous instance, then it's by definition wrong to use it. And since Microsoft recently did release a patch for an EOL product, using it now is plain wrong. Nice by Microsoft, but still wrong. It also makes me wonder how well a "ten more years of security patches" upgrade for Win7 would sell...
adjective 1. without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled:
Your point is both correct and pedantic.
I read 'unprecedented' as 'unusual, since releasing security patches for a product that was long past EOL is unusual. Not many organizations willing to do that and MS should be commended.
The idea that your past employer can dictate your future is abhorrent.
You are when you sign the non-compete agreement. You are accepting a job under a set of conditions.
You are accepting a job in exchange for wages, when wages stop so should conditions.
How would you feel if you were downsized, but still forced to show up at the office at 9am or risk wage claw-backs or lawsuits?
It is easy to create high-quality product if cost is not constrained - just over-over engineer everything. It is making high-quality cheap goods that is difficult.
For example, making a cheap car is easy. Making a cheap car that is safe, clean, and reliable is challenging for even large manufacturers. This is why making a car like Bolt at $35K is much harder than making Tesla S at $100K.
I am shocked, shocked to hear that corporations abuse arbitration clauses to profiteer and engage in dishonest billing practices.
Theresa may think that the only way to fighting radical Islam is to build a totalitarian regime, I hope voters disagree. Personally, I would rather government protect my rights than keep me safe.
Absolutely it should. Conincidentally, I legally changed my name to 1;drop table.
Corporation just like terrorism is an idea. Corporate ownership is not really easy to trace, with shell corporations and complex offshoring structures it takes an army of forensic accountants with access to books to untangle this. Robot workforce will just show up and leave, and unless specific government is willing to outlaw all private ownership of robots it won't be effective at stopping this.
This was a reply, with relevant quote included in the post, to "They will be kept in check by governments holding monopolies on force".
The governments are not successful keeping in check any kind of modern non-government entities, from dissidents, to terrorist organization, to multinationals dodging taxes. It reasons, they won't be able to do anything about multinationals controlling highly portable robotic workforce.
Nope. They will be kept in check by governments holding monopolies on force.
How successful is China in censoring Tienanmen Square worldwide? Not at all. How long did it take to catch Dread Pirate Robers by the nation that currently represents pinnacle of force? This will get extrapolated even further difficulties applying this force as we get further intertwined with technology.
And of course, with people out of work because of the robots, the multinationals won't have anybody able to buy their products.
This isn't as big of a problem as you think. They will just switch to B2B.
How is this any different from jobs lost to efficiency gains from software?
Very good question. First, software is very limited in what it could do by itself in a physical world. I can't write garbage collection subroutine and also expect it to take out my trash. Second, software mainly deals with data. In this way it opens new fields and creates employment. There isn't a way for me to pick up a shovel and perform a database queue, as such it isn't displacing existing work.
Robots are both universal in functionality and do not perform any new tasks. Ideal robot, something like Data from Star Trek, is designed to replace humans. Software is not.
Government relies on income and sales taxes to disproportionate degree. With robots taking over, there won't be enough money to support social programs or even local government. We will quickly get to unified world government, but it will be controlled by multinationals that own these robots.
Sanctions against US, that will inevitably will lead to retaliation, will be God's gift to Russia and China. There won't be Western Civilization left standing when this all plays out.
Yeah, fuck the future! Fuck the planet! Fuck humanity!
While I think withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord is a very bad idea, the above is a hysterical over-reaction. I am of two views about this - if direst models hold true and no technical solution exists, with or without Paris Climate Accord we are fucked by a runaway greenhouse effect. If technical solution exists, such as atmospheric filtering and pumping it into underground vaults then lack of Paris Climate Accord support will only make it more expensive in the future. Considering future is about 50 years away, this may be worthwhile tradeoff with sufficiently high IRR.
Social media as a business model has very low barriers to entry. As such, your ideas are treated as a drive-through diner for anyone bothering to compete with you.
Intelligence is heritable and we are not born equally intelligent. It is normally distributed and unless selected for results in regression to the mean in the offspring in general population.
Online advertising doesn't work and Google now has hard data to prove it.