Since when is it government's duty to make sure people have things to do with their time? Nobody has the right to a job or even universal basic income/welfare.
You don't have a right to prevent people from using robots. You don't have the right to a job and to work. WTF. If you want a job, go make a job.
Besides money from taxation, I don't mind owning shares and doing stuff like that. I can use the dividends to pay for luxuries. Universal basic income for the necessities.
Building a telescope for Galileo is cheap. It can be self funded.
"The same guys, who are paying for travel to Mars — they aren't going to live long enough to travel there themselves either. And yet, they do it — with their own monies."
READ THIS LINE CAREFULLY: NOBODY is building a rocket ship to Mars with their own money. Boeing, SpaceX/Elon's entire space program is funded by government buying rides on his rockets. Who do you think will fund 20+ billion to go to Mars except government(s)? How many private foundations even gave 25 cents to build the Large Hadron Collider? What about the Hubble Space Telescope? Did Boeing pay for it?
"if nobody would do it voluntarily, why do you think it fair to compel you and me to pay for it at gun-point?"
Because YOU are competing me to pay for things that YOU want but *I* don't need (examples will follow). And btw obviously a majority of voters are willing to pay for it with their taxes. Hey I don't want to build a wall to keep people out.. you're trying to compel me to pay for that aren't you? Hey I don't want to pay for imprisoning someone who stole from you. I got no beef with the guy. Why should I pay for that? Why should I pay for the things that you may want but I have no use for?
Because we need it for the things a majority of people have decided they want. You aren't compelled to pay. You can exit the contract at any point. Most of our fundamental science has come from government funding.
You aren't being compelled at gunpoint.. you can leave the social contract (country/economy) and not pay taxes.
Ok, why would anyone fund Galileo's telescope? He didn't find anything anyone could profit from for 100years.
Who would build the large hadron collider?
Why would anyone fund any of our current large telescopes? There is no immediate profit to uncovering some esoteric anomaly in the diskoseismology of the accretion disc around a black hole. But maybe 100years from now someone will figure out a new theory of gravity based on that knowledge that will allow us to have flying cars or unlimited energy.
Nobody has that sort of risk capital. So we gathered around and said well just like how everyone has to pay for the army that protects us, if you wanna live in civilization then you gotta pay for things the majority thinks is necessary.
I am mostly libertarian in the sense government shouldn't compete with private industry.. but there are some societal needs government should fill -- if it doesn't prevent private industry from competing.
Ok that's corporate double speak. They don't want to be sued for insulting Fuller. They still need him, it's a matter of being cordial. It's how corporations fire people.
"We appreciate all your prior service. We don't require your services anymore. mmK? Thanx bye."
I've been trying to figure that out for the Republican party. I wonder how up in heaven they are preventing Lincoln from finding out what happened to his once great party.
This isn't exactly new. Heart tissue is easy to grow and already used for disease modeling. Call me when they make something that is structurally a heart. We've had heart tissue in hydrogels and various other materials since the 1980s and heart tissue on sheets for maybe 20 years for drug testing. The novelty here is that it's on chip and optimal for drug testing?
Is there any proof the counterfeits are prone to catching fire or anything like that? They didn't go through consumer testing, but that doesn't by itself mean it's unsafe. Granted I wouldn't trust it with a ten foot fireproof pole and they should be taken off the market.
Without commercials TV shows would have to be purchased.. this would make it more expensive. In addition, consumers will have no means to know about useful products and services. Without that, product sales will reduce. When there is less trading, there is less employment. When there is less employment few people can afford the TV shows. This will cause TV show revenue to decrease, resulting in poorer quality tv shows. Anyway what I am saying is that I hate advertising as much as the next guy but long term suffering through a few ads may actually be beneficial to society and yourself.
That was because they were getting hammered by peer to peer file sharing services like Napster and Kazaa, eMule, and and whole bunch of others whose name I forgot. Everyone was downloading their music illegally and CD sales were plummeting. The content owners are not going to allow TV to be reinvented unless they get paid off it. Before iTunes, people were getting their music free.. now they are paying $1.25.
Miss the show ? Pay. Want to watch old TV shows from the 80s? Pay.
Why do you think Netflix is having to make original content? Content owners know that they are better off charging per viewing than selling a bunch of shows in bulk. Pretty soon we'll be subscribing to TV shows. Probably will start at $20 per season. After 10 years they will charge a time shifting fee if you don't watch it at a certain time.
Uh,content owners want to overcharge you for that. I mean, they know you are desperate to see some show so why not make some money off that? It's like buying bottled water after Katrina. We'll sort of, but without the malice.
They know you want it, so why not make some extra money off that? Why not charge you for the convenience of watching it later? The only reason VCR is allowed is because the Supreme Court forced it on the TV networks.
Because now it's a matter of refining the software. Anyway, if it turns out they need a fancier radar or something I am sure they can swap one in. It's mostly well known what hardware and computing power is needed for self driving. We know how much CPU power is needed to render the 3D graphics of Avatar 2 but that doesn't mean the movie is completed. And like I said if someone invents a way to make it better then let the next generation cars have it.
It doesn't need lane markings if it can has a good 3D representation of what's around it. If a human can do it, a car can do it better because it will have far more deep imaging, radars, GPS based spatial awareness, cameras etc to lean on. If the conditions are dangerous for a human. A human shouldn't be driving in it either.
Basic high school level physics can show you that RF is non-ionizing. In fact you are hit with light rays which are of much higher frequency and it hasn't done anything. Until you start getting into UV, RF is harmless.
I don't believe anyone who is xenophobic isn't racist. Only racists can be xenophobic. If you aren't racist why would you hate fear and hate foreigners? And btw, to make things worse, Trump believes in killing innocent relatives of terrorists as a form of deterrence and revenge. He also believes in extreme torture (while claiming to be a strong Christian), how the hell can anyone support such a candidate?
Only if there is bad luck and incidents like that happen before autonomous vehicles are widespread. And even so, it may slow it down but I believe autonomously vehicles are the inevitable. I mean, things just as horrible have happened for other stuff. It lights up the news for a few days maybe even weeks. It even becomes a hashtag but then eventually takes a payoff and retires to be forgotten in the Bahamas.
If many people own driverless cars they won't fall for it. They won't give up the convenience. It's already physically annoying to drive without autopilot once you get used to it (i.e., after a few weeks). I mean we know smoking cigarettes cause cancer. Even smokers know it causes cancer. Have people given it up? Not a lot. We know drunk people cause thousands of deaths via bar fights/stabbing/domestic violence and also drunk driving. Have we brought back prohibition? Cigarettes and alcohol when abused are bad for you. I mean they provide a societal economic benefit by offering people the chance to relax from a days work.. but they also cause a lot of harm. Driverless cars too would offer economic benefit (read, video conference, or watch tv while driving) and much more rarely cause harm than alcohol or cigarettes. So why would people give it up? I don't think people are as stupid as assumed. Though I might change my mind if Trump gets elected.
First off if you were even half correct, Tesla wouldn't have a much higher safety record than any other car. Second, with objects moving at speed a car computer with radar and other sensors would be a lot better at anticipating for example whether someone intends to go through a stop sign. Humans don't currently have radar sense as far as I know and probably won't even get a visual on the car until it's too late. A self driving car can judge that an incoming car driver has not pressed the brake and in the worst case adjust its own speed such that the car's occupants (passenger compartment) don't receive the brunt of the collision. Even if the driver wakes up and slams the brake one second before he collision, the self driving car will know what to do because it will detect the speed change and work other he physics in realtime -- assuming it couldn't anticipate it way early. You usually have to press the brake seconds before you reach a stop sign so it will be obvious to any driverless car that you will run it. No human can have that level of fine grained split second speed adjustment and brake application. Driverless cars would even be able to tell when there is a sleepy or drunk driver on the road (abnormal swerving etc) and avoid them. Human judgement might be better at determining when say a stalker may be following you home (or actually a car may be better at that since it can track statistical probabilities of someone making the same turns as you etc). So basically, thinking about it there is nothing in operating the vehicle that a computer wouldn't be better at handling than a human.
Self driving cars will only get better at a anticipating each other. Eventually we may not even have stop signs and traffic lights since cars will adjust their speeds so they can mesh through the intersections at near top speed.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when is it government's duty to make sure people have things to do with their time? Nobody has the right to a job or even universal basic income/welfare.
You don't have a right to prevent people from using robots. You don't have the right to a job and to work. WTF. If you want a job, go make a job.
Besides money from taxation, I don't mind owning shares and doing stuff like that. I can use the dividends to pay for luxuries. Universal basic income for the necessities.
Tax the robots and hook me up with universal basic income instead.
Building a telescope for Galileo is cheap. It can be self funded.
"The same guys, who are paying for travel to Mars — they aren't going to live long enough to travel there themselves either. And yet, they do it — with their own monies."
READ THIS LINE CAREFULLY: NOBODY is building a rocket ship to Mars with their own money. Boeing, SpaceX/Elon's entire space program is funded by government buying rides on his rockets. Who do you think will fund 20+ billion to go to Mars except government(s)? How many private foundations even gave 25 cents to build the Large Hadron Collider? What about the Hubble Space Telescope? Did Boeing pay for it?
"if nobody would do it voluntarily, why do you think it fair to compel you and me to pay for it at gun-point?"
Because YOU are competing me to pay for things that YOU want but *I* don't need (examples will follow). And btw obviously a majority of voters are willing to pay for it with their taxes. Hey I don't want to build a wall to keep people out .. you're trying to compel me to pay for that aren't you? Hey I don't want to pay for imprisoning someone who stole from you. I got no beef with the guy. Why should I pay for that? Why should I pay for the things that you may want but I have no use for?
Because we need it for the things a majority of people have decided they want. You aren't compelled to pay. You can exit the contract at any point. Most of our fundamental science has come from government funding.
You aren't being compelled at gunpoint .. you can leave the social contract (country/economy) and not pay taxes.
Ok, why would anyone fund Galileo's telescope? He didn't find anything anyone could profit from for 100years.
Who would build the large hadron collider?
Why would anyone fund any of our current large telescopes? There is no immediate profit to uncovering some esoteric anomaly in the diskoseismology of the accretion disc around a black hole. But maybe 100years from now someone will figure out a new theory of gravity based on that knowledge that will allow us to have flying cars or unlimited energy.
Nobody has that sort of risk capital. So we gathered around and said well just like how everyone has to pay for the army that protects us, if you wanna live in civilization then you gotta pay for things the majority thinks is necessary.
I am mostly libertarian in the sense government shouldn't compete with private industry .. but there are some societal needs government should fill -- if it doesn't prevent private industry from competing.
Ok that's corporate double speak. They don't want to be sued for insulting Fuller. They still need him, it's a matter of being cordial. It's how corporations fire people.
"We appreciate all your prior service. We don't require your services anymore. mmK? Thanx bye."
I've been trying to figure that out for the Republican party. I wonder how up in heaven they are preventing Lincoln from finding out what happened to his once great party.
MacOS has a much better program than Paint 3D for doing this type of stuff. It's called Preview. .. ....
OK fine. I lied. Preview sucks you can't even draw properly in it. Why the F doesn't MacOS come with a Paint program??
This isn't exactly new. Heart tissue is easy to grow and already used for disease modeling. Call me when they make something that is structurally a heart. We've had heart tissue in hydrogels and various other materials since the 1980s and heart tissue on sheets for maybe 20 years for drug testing. The novelty here is that it's on chip and optimal for drug testing?
http://circres.ahajournals.org... [ahajournals.org]
Why are we still using DNS? It's stupid. It's not secure. It's ugly. Quit bickering and settle on a secure alternative.
Is there any proof the counterfeits are prone to catching fire or anything like that? They didn't go through consumer testing, but that doesn't by itself mean it's unsafe. Granted I wouldn't trust it with a ten foot fireproof pole and they should be taken off the market.
Without commercials TV shows would have to be purchased.. this would make it more expensive. In addition, consumers will have no means to know about useful products and services. Without that, product sales will reduce. When there is less trading, there is less employment. When there is less employment few people can afford the TV shows. This will cause TV show revenue to decrease, resulting in poorer quality tv shows.
Anyway what I am saying is that I hate advertising as much as the next guy but long term suffering through a few ads may actually be beneficial to society and yourself.
That was because they were getting hammered by peer to peer file sharing services like Napster and Kazaa, eMule, and and whole bunch of others whose name I forgot. Everyone was downloading their music illegally and CD sales were plummeting. The content owners are not going to allow TV to be reinvented unless they get paid off it. Before iTunes, people were getting their music free.. now they are paying $1.25.
Miss the show ? Pay. Want to watch old TV shows from the 80s? Pay.
Why do you think Netflix is having to make original content? Content owners know that they are better off charging per viewing than selling a bunch of shows in bulk. Pretty soon we'll be subscribing to TV shows. Probably will start at $20 per season. After 10 years they will charge a time shifting fee if you don't watch it at a certain time.
Uh,content owners want to overcharge you for that. I mean, they know you are desperate to see some show so why not make some money off that? It's like buying bottled water after Katrina. We'll sort of, but without the malice.
They know you want it, so why not make some extra money off that? Why not charge you for the convenience of watching it later?
The only reason VCR is allowed is because the Supreme Court forced it on the TV networks.
Uh ok, but then what was the point of ASLR all along?
Because now it's a matter of refining the software. Anyway, if it turns out they need a fancier radar or something I am sure they can swap one in. It's mostly well known what hardware and computing power is needed for self driving. We know how much CPU power is needed to render the 3D graphics of Avatar 2 but that doesn't mean the movie is completed. And like I said if someone invents a way to make it better then let the next generation cars have it.
It doesn't need lane markings if it can has a good 3D representation of what's around it. If a human can do it, a car can do it better because it will have far more deep imaging, radars, GPS based spatial awareness, cameras etc to lean on. If the conditions are dangerous for a human. A human shouldn't be driving in it either.
Basic high school level physics can show you that RF is non-ionizing. In fact you are hit with light rays which are of much higher frequency and it hasn't done anything. Until you start getting into UV, RF is harmless.
I don't believe anyone who is xenophobic isn't racist. Only racists can be xenophobic. If you aren't racist why would you hate fear and hate foreigners? And btw, to make things worse, Trump believes in killing innocent relatives of terrorists as a form of deterrence and revenge. He also believes in extreme torture (while claiming to be a strong Christian), how the hell can anyone support such a candidate?
Why in the fuck are you asking me that? I came here to get the news, not to be asked what the news is. Shit.
Chill out. Dude wrote a useful and informational article. Offer some constructive criticism but no need to sudo bash him by getting on his case.
FYI, mental health services and trans-cranial electro-shock therapy is covered under Obamacare.
Just saying.
Only if there is bad luck and incidents like that happen before autonomous vehicles are widespread. And even so, it may slow it down but I believe autonomously vehicles are the inevitable. I mean, things just as horrible have happened for other stuff. It lights up the news for a few days maybe even weeks. It even becomes a hashtag but then eventually takes a payoff and retires to be forgotten in the Bahamas.
If many people own driverless cars they won't fall for it. They won't give up the convenience. It's already physically annoying to drive without autopilot once you get used to it (i.e., after a few weeks). I mean we know smoking cigarettes cause cancer. Even smokers know it causes cancer. Have people given it up? Not a lot. We know drunk people cause thousands of deaths via bar fights/stabbing/domestic violence and also drunk driving. Have we brought back prohibition? Cigarettes and alcohol when abused are bad for you. I mean they provide a societal economic benefit by offering people the chance to relax from a days work .. but they also cause a lot of harm. Driverless cars too would offer economic benefit (read, video conference, or watch tv while driving) and much more rarely cause harm than alcohol or cigarettes. So why would people give it up? I don't think people are as stupid as assumed. Though I might change my mind if Trump gets elected.
First off if you were even half correct, Tesla wouldn't have a much higher safety record than any other car. Second, with objects moving at speed a car computer with radar and other sensors would be a lot better at anticipating for example whether someone intends to go through a stop sign. Humans don't currently have radar sense as far as I know and probably won't even get a visual on the car until it's too late. A self driving car can judge that an incoming car driver has not pressed the brake and in the worst case adjust its own speed such that the car's occupants (passenger compartment) don't receive the brunt of the collision. Even if the driver wakes up and slams the brake one second before he collision, the self driving car will know what to do because it will detect the speed change and work other he physics in realtime -- assuming it couldn't anticipate it way early. You usually have to press the brake seconds before you reach a stop sign so it will be obvious to any driverless car that you will run it. No human can have that level of fine grained split second speed adjustment and brake application. Driverless cars would even be able to tell when there is a sleepy or drunk driver on the road (abnormal swerving etc) and avoid them. Human judgement might be better at determining when say a stalker may be following you home (or actually a car may be better at that since it can track statistical probabilities of someone making the same turns as you etc). So basically, thinking about it there is nothing in operating the vehicle that a computer wouldn't be better at handling than a human.
Self driving cars will only get better at a anticipating each other. Eventually we may not even have stop signs and traffic lights since cars will adjust their speeds so they can mesh through the intersections at near top speed.
Fact: Being cool with extreme torture, especially without a fair trial, is evil.
Fact: Deliberately targeting people who are related to terrorists but have committed no crime is evil.
Fact: The last thing you cite was in 1964.
Fact: Most Republicans today are against the Civil Rights Act.