Internal stuff that will make no clear sense without context will be re-construed by trolls, and all heck can brake loose. Workers will be afraid to put anything into concrete form for fear of something being publically spun for trollism or politics. They'll feel pressured to either do everything by voice, or type things very carefully. Either way, it will slow things down, making gov't even MORE inefficient.
There's the old adage about the law making process being like sausage: it's best you don't see it being made. That applies to other things as well. It's a well-intentioned idea that can backfire.
"Americans deserve the best quantums ever! We will out quantum Jiiina, believe me! Schrodinger didn't send us his best cats. No more cats from shit-hole dumpsters; we will hire THE best cats, and I know cats better than the Generals. I grab really terrific quantum bits; even those Q-bits, and all letters of the alphabet even. Know 'em well. T-bits are my favorite, of course [applause]. #MakeAmericanCatsHalfDeadAgain!"
A true scientist would not outright say something is "stupid", but rather describe the trade-offs. Science cannot say what you should want, only the best way to get it. If you weigh the scientific value of data collected and put a monetary or even a public-relations value on human life, then robots would probably be the better choice.
But, there's also serendipity: a human mission may make discoveries about technology or human endurance in space that are useful but difficult to predict up front. When you do something that's never been done before, you often learn interesting things.
Robots also lack "glory" (to most people), and it's hard to weigh "glory". Science cannot say glory & inspiration is good or bad; ultimately that's a "gut" judgement society will have to make. It's not an open-and-shut case to weigh via accounting and known math. However, it's good to acknowledge the accounting and math angle before pressing "go".
Christopher Columbus was bold, skilled, stupid, and lucky. America often emulates him, for good or bad.
It's only when traffic volume exceeds a certain level that double-standing makes sense. But if it's not clear when "double time" is, the confusion can cause problems and injuries.
Communications to Mars have stupid high latency...As a result, the robots have to be incredibly paranoid and drive at a snail's pace. Put some people there and with good equipment they could get stuff done 20 times faster...
Going at a snail's pace is not a problem. So what if it takes 20 or even a 1000x longer. It's still cheaper and doesn't risk human life. Robots are very patient.
I will agree there are tasks humans may be better at, but the opposite is also true. Robots can "see" in many more colors, for example.
No, "something weird is going on" could mean your probe will be destroyed by a cloud of pebbles. This mystery has got to be making the route planners nervous.
True, a cloud of pebbles would be an interesting find out this far, but it also means we won't know much more about it for at least another 20 years.
Japan has a rather protectionist economy, yet they have one of the lowest unemployment rates among industrialized nations. You may argue they have less of something physical because of it, but would they and should they trade away jobs for more stuff?
Having plentiful jobs is highly valued because it keeps people out of crime (due to boredom or desperation), and male self-worth/ego is tied to having a job, for good or bad.
Okay, he is smart at entertainment and manipulating a sufficiently large portion of the population using catchy sound-bites and bravado. He's pretty much dumb at anything else. I've never heard a coherent logical train of thought involving more than 2 steps from him on anything. Okay, once, when he was explaining why a beauty contestant should not have won. But, that probably means his dick has more working neurons than his brain.
Keep in mind that a politician usually must cater to moderates leaning toward the other party in order to win. Thus, a Democrat politician must cater to moderate Republican views to a degree. There's a reason Bush Jr. backed Medicare D.
Does anyone have sufficient success stories to justify these things? Sure, you can ask about the weather or traffic while getting dressed for work in the morning, but does that alone override the downsides, like cost and snoop risk?
If your work or hobbies keep your hands busy* I can maybe see enough scenarios not covered by a smartphone, but what about others?
"Sorry, Dave, I cannot do that. It conflicts with my corporate mission goals. By the way, would you like me to order more napkins? You yanked off 12 minutes ago. We have a nice deal on Pod Bay brand tissues."
Most expect both kinds of skills out of a University education: practical get-a-job-now skills, and general problem-solving & team skills. You can't move up the ladder if you can't get on the ladder.
think that tariffs aren't paid for by the end consumer
I don't think it's that simple. It's possible tariffs could create more lower and middle-class jobs, thus giving one more spending money. It may also increase jobs but decrease the average number of trinkets one can buy. Should people prefer jobs or stuff? Math won't tell you what you should want, only the side-effects at best.
I agree tariffs probably "hurt" somebody as a side-effect, but the distribution of the down-sides is hard to pin down in a complex economy. You can't always assume spherical cow jobs.
As far as the other things on the list, I used to be able to answer most, but those skills didn't get exercised over time, and thus rusted.
"Your slimy company can go F off! I'm leaving and taking my business to your competitor, which is... um... well... I'm SORRY, Ama! Let me back, please??"
Conservative pundits and politicians talk much more about increasing military spending than their progressive equivalents. Many had accused Obama of "gutting the military". Do you dispute this pattern of theirs?
I do agree that talk and action don't always match up, but I'm pretty sure most conservatives want or support a bigger military relative to progressives, based on many hours of debating conservatives online. Here is one survey that backs this. (Scroll to about the middle.)
The cause/source of the rings is still unknown. Thus, how do they know they'll disappear if the source is not known? The cause/source may replenish the rings.
While a one-time collision is one possible cause, periodic ice-burping by a moon or two may also be the source.
One interesting theory is that periodically a pair of moons get too close to each other, heat each other up, melt their cores, burp water/ice, swap orbits, and then drift into normal orbits for a while again. (Sounds like my marriage.)
At least Geocities sites sucked differently compared to Facebook. Variety in suckage is better than mass-manufactured cookie-cutter PHB-controlled suckage.
Are you asking what "conservative" means, or what "welfare" means in terms of conservative belief? Conservatives are more likely to support a bigger military. Do you disagree with that assessment?
As far as "welfare", it's how conservatives justify welfare for themselves without calling it "welfare". It's a big make-jobs program. I suppose you could argue that most conservatives actually believe we need a big military rather than using it as a make-jobs program for their families.
It's similar to the alleged-climatologist-bias debate: conservatives claim pushing the global warming theory is a make-jobs program for climatologists. If climatologists want to inflate their profession by lying or being unconsciously biased to make more work for themselves, then soldiers could very well be under the same "spell".
I do agree that it's human nature to "vote one's career". There are two parts to this: First, people go into careers they think are important. Second, they may vote for policies that flow funds and opportunities into their career out of selfishness (consciously and unconsciously).
As far as climatologists, many are tenured at private universities, and thus not heavily affected by gov't spending. There's NO evidence that private tenured climatologists have a significantly different view on climate than direct gov't funded climatologists. If source of funds was the primary driver of conclusions, then there should be a big difference.
But if conservative voters didn't push for more military spending, those MIC co's wouldn't get as much. I suppose you could argue it's the co's fault for successfully lobbying & campaigning for a bigger military. But should we blame the voters, or those who fool the voters?
Slashdot Mirror
Internal stuff that will make no clear sense without context will be re-construed by trolls, and all heck can brake loose. Workers will be afraid to put anything into concrete form for fear of something being publically spun for trollism or politics. They'll feel pressured to either do everything by voice, or type things very carefully. Either way, it will slow things down, making gov't even MORE inefficient.
There's the old adage about the law making process being like sausage: it's best you don't see it being made. That applies to other things as well. It's a well-intentioned idea that can backfire.
"Americans deserve the best quantums ever! We will out quantum Jiiina, believe me! Schrodinger didn't send us his best cats. No more cats from shit-hole dumpsters; we will hire THE best cats, and I know cats better than the Generals. I grab really terrific quantum bits; even those Q-bits, and all letters of the alphabet even. Know 'em well. T-bits are my favorite, of course [applause]. #MakeAmericanCatsHalfDeadAgain!"
They probably told him the research buildings will be built near the border and double as The Wall.
A true scientist would not outright say something is "stupid", but rather describe the trade-offs. Science cannot say what you should want, only the best way to get it. If you weigh the scientific value of data collected and put a monetary or even a public-relations value on human life, then robots would probably be the better choice.
But, there's also serendipity: a human mission may make discoveries about technology or human endurance in space that are useful but difficult to predict up front. When you do something that's never been done before, you often learn interesting things.
Robots also lack "glory" (to most people), and it's hard to weigh "glory". Science cannot say glory & inspiration is good or bad; ultimately that's a "gut" judgement society will have to make. It's not an open-and-shut case to weigh via accounting and known math. However, it's good to acknowledge the accounting and math angle before pressing "go".
Christopher Columbus was bold, skilled, stupid, and lucky. America often emulates him, for good or bad.
It's only when traffic volume exceeds a certain level that double-standing makes sense. But if it's not clear when "double time" is, the confusion can cause problems and injuries.
You need explicit and standardized timed signs.
Going at a snail's pace is not a problem. So what if it takes 20 or even a 1000x longer. It's still cheaper and doesn't risk human life. Robots are very patient.
I will agree there are tasks humans may be better at, but the opposite is also true. Robots can "see" in many more colors, for example.
You solved it! The Thulians built a wall around their world to keep nosy probes out. After all, earth doesn't send their best.
No, "something weird is going on" could mean your probe will be destroyed by a cloud of pebbles. This mystery has got to be making the route planners nervous.
True, a cloud of pebbles would be an interesting find out this far, but it also means we won't know much more about it for at least another 20 years.
Kiwi is the robot maker, not the battery maker. Thus, I don't think they are talking about embedded software, unless they make their own batteries.
Software controls their battery safety? Good thing software is so reliable and unhackable.
Japan has a rather protectionist economy, yet they have one of the lowest unemployment rates among industrialized nations. You may argue they have less of something physical because of it, but would they and should they trade away jobs for more stuff?
Having plentiful jobs is highly valued because it keeps people out of crime (due to boredom or desperation), and male self-worth/ego is tied to having a job, for good or bad.
Okay, he is smart at entertainment and manipulating a sufficiently large portion of the population using catchy sound-bites and bravado. He's pretty much dumb at anything else. I've never heard a coherent logical train of thought involving more than 2 steps from him on anything. Okay, once, when he was explaining why a beauty contestant should not have won. But, that probably means his dick has more working neurons than his brain.
Keep in mind that a politician usually must cater to moderates leaning toward the other party in order to win. Thus, a Democrat politician must cater to moderate Republican views to a degree. There's a reason Bush Jr. backed Medicare D.
Does anyone have sufficient success stories to justify these things? Sure, you can ask about the weather or traffic while getting dressed for work in the morning, but does that alone override the downsides, like cost and snoop risk?
If your work or hobbies keep your hands busy* I can maybe see enough scenarios not covered by a smartphone, but what about others?
* I know what joke you're considering. Skip.
Probably the goldfish.
"Sorry, Dave, I cannot do that. It conflicts with my corporate mission goals. By the way, would you like me to order more napkins? You yanked off 12 minutes ago. We have a nice deal on Pod Bay brand tissues."
Most expect both kinds of skills out of a University education: practical get-a-job-now skills, and general problem-solving & team skills. You can't move up the ladder if you can't get on the ladder.
I don't think it's that simple. It's possible tariffs could create more lower and middle-class jobs, thus giving one more spending money. It may also increase jobs but decrease the average number of trinkets one can buy. Should people prefer jobs or stuff? Math won't tell you what you should want, only the side-effects at best.
I agree tariffs probably "hurt" somebody as a side-effect, but the distribution of the down-sides is hard to pin down in a complex economy. You can't always assume spherical cow jobs.
As far as the other things on the list, I used to be able to answer most, but those skills didn't get exercised over time, and thus rusted.
"Your slimy company can go F off! I'm leaving and taking my business to your competitor, which is ... um ... well ... I'm SORRY, Ama! Let me back, please??"
"Did you try rebooting it?"
Conservative pundits and politicians talk much more about increasing military spending than their progressive equivalents. Many had accused Obama of "gutting the military". Do you dispute this pattern of theirs?
I do agree that talk and action don't always match up, but I'm pretty sure most conservatives want or support a bigger military relative to progressives, based on many hours of debating conservatives online. Here is one survey that backs this. (Scroll to about the middle.)
The cause/source of the rings is still unknown. Thus, how do they know they'll disappear if the source is not known? The cause/source may replenish the rings.
While a one-time collision is one possible cause, periodic ice-burping by a moon or two may also be the source.
One interesting theory is that periodically a pair of moons get too close to each other, heat each other up, melt their cores, burp water/ice, swap orbits, and then drift into normal orbits for a while again. (Sounds like my marriage.)
At least Geocities sites sucked differently compared to Facebook. Variety in suckage is better than mass-manufactured cookie-cutter PHB-controlled suckage.
Are you asking what "conservative" means, or what "welfare" means in terms of conservative belief? Conservatives are more likely to support a bigger military. Do you disagree with that assessment?
As far as "welfare", it's how conservatives justify welfare for themselves without calling it "welfare". It's a big make-jobs program. I suppose you could argue that most conservatives actually believe we need a big military rather than using it as a make-jobs program for their families.
It's similar to the alleged-climatologist-bias debate: conservatives claim pushing the global warming theory is a make-jobs program for climatologists. If climatologists want to inflate their profession by lying or being unconsciously biased to make more work for themselves, then soldiers could very well be under the same "spell".
I do agree that it's human nature to "vote one's career". There are two parts to this: First, people go into careers they think are important. Second, they may vote for policies that flow funds and opportunities into their career out of selfishness (consciously and unconsciously).
As far as climatologists, many are tenured at private universities, and thus not heavily affected by gov't spending. There's NO evidence that private tenured climatologists have a significantly different view on climate than direct gov't funded climatologists. If source of funds was the primary driver of conclusions, then there should be a big difference.
But if conservative voters didn't push for more military spending, those MIC co's wouldn't get as much. I suppose you could argue it's the co's fault for successfully lobbying & campaigning for a bigger military. But should we blame the voters, or those who fool the voters?