OK, so they fond a worm hole that lets you travel with a longer subjective time but an 'objective' (objective referring to an outside observer) time of almost nil. Call this a long-cut worm hole.
The solution is obvious - travel through the long-cut worm hole at a speed approaching that of light. Say 99.999% C. As per Einstein, traveling at such a speed causes you to age less than someone in comparison to a twin back on Earth. In other words, it reduces your subjective time, but does not affect the objective time.
Net Net, you can now travel via the long-cut worm hole, taking close to nil observer time and also close to nil subjective time.
Now your long-cut worm hole acts like a short-cut worm hole.
To me the question isn't why they they are underestimating the problem, but instead why are they concentrating on self driving cars?
Obviously the first applications should be self driving Buses, Long Haul 18 wheelers, Garbage Trucks, etc. etc.
Things where slower speed is acceptable whose route is mostly pre-planned, where companies are paying a man to drive rather than someone is driving themselves.
The people objecting are hoping that if they report actual flight time vs estimated total travel time it will somehow speed up the trip.
I assure you, airlines hate delays more than you do. Time is quite literally their money. If they can cut travel time, they save energy costs - even on the tarmac awaiting lift off costs them energy, which costs $.
They are doing a better job by accurately informing you when you will arrive, so that you family can pick you up with less wasted waiting time for them. Your waiting time won't be shorter if they don't tell you about it.
I am pretty sure you can't offer a reward for catching a bug hunter. Not unless they have committed a crime.
I know that software companies assume all bug hunters are actually criminals, but you still have to prove they used the bugs to commit a crime, you can't just offer a reward for catching a bug hunter.
Yeah, I know some of you are thinking the poster meant to write a reward TO bug hunters, but we are talking about a major tech companies here, not people known for actually caring about the bugs in their products.
High probability of abuse. They should require a doctor to prescribe the drug for each individual (human, animal, or plant), only after physically examining that individual.
Those three are: 1) Legal Liability. 2) Fear of the new, and 3) AI not correctly predicting human stupidity.
Issue 1 is a political lobby away from being removed. Some company, like Tesla, develops the technology and pays a political lobby to get Congress to allow the company to self insure all the vehicles they sell - either in the new market or the 2nd hand market - if Tesla sells the used car. Boom, that issue vanishes.
Issue 2 is irrelevant. The first AI vehicles will be commercial vehicles, not cars. Long Haul trucking, Garbage Trucks, Public Buses, will be the innovators. Their companies will all pay attention to long term cost - including the cost to hire drivers, and ignore the human fear. Or they will be beaten in the market by companies that do.
Issue 3 is the only problem without an obvious solution, but technology is ALREADY better than a human in almost everything except this issue. The benefits of slower driving and fewer stupid human first hand drivers already outweigh the lessened ability to predict what a stupid human in the other car will do.
Version 3 had lots of changes, eventually becoming 3.5 Version 4 was OK, but came too quick after 3.5. People did not want to buy a whole new set of books.
Version 5 is good and came long enough after 4, and has lasted long enough without a 5.5.
It also helps that websites like roll20.net make it easier to play online.
That is pure bullshit. You have made the mistake of assuming luck refers to good luck. Yes that is important - being born near Silicon Valley during the right time period made a ton of people into millionaires and even billionaires. But there is more at work here.
It just as often refers to the absence of bad luck. Not getting an expensive and time consuming health issue (for you or a close relative) at the age of 19. Being born in a school district that has a computer class. Not having your parents lose their job weeks after you applied to college, but too late to apply for scholarships.
When you have bad luck, no amount of merit can surmount it. Think about what would have happened to Stephen Hawking if his disease had started being serious when he turned 17 rather than 21. Still graduate college with grades good enough to go to Oxford? Perhaps. Or what if the disease had progressed as they originally thought and killed him at 24. Would he have finished his life work? No way.
Here are the ways my friends got lucky, that we think of as "normal", rather than lucky.
Born to a Democratic country. Born to the 'majority' race of this country. Born to middle class parents that could afford the many expensive college prep steps we took. Born to parents that valued education/ Born in a well off state that actually puts money to education. Born smart (YES, THAT'S LUCK, NOT MERIT.) Merit refers to the work you do, not the intelligence you were born with.
No major diseases in ourselves, our siblings, or parents. Grandparents did not have to move in, taking up parental time and money. No major crimes/disaster/deaths in our immediate family. Peaceful country. Try to make a start-up in a war zone.
Those are just a few of the obvious ones. Every single millionaire I have ever met has been EXTREMELY lucky. But the same is not true of intelligence or hard work. Many are stupid and/or lazy.
Merit is helpful in becoming well off, but not the determining factor by any means.
Ideally, contracts that are not approved by lawyers on both sides need to be vetted and rated by a government lawyer. Any unusual terms would have to be high lighted and moved to a summary in the first paragraph, along with a general grade, from AF.
Any terms that the government lawyer deems unenforceable or illegal would automatically grant an F. Corporations routinely put in terms that most lawyers consider to be unenforceable as a form of intimidation.
President Trump's loyalty gag contracts (https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trumps-unlawful-gag-orders-and-why-he-cant-handle-the-truth/) are just one example of such tactics. No other President used such terms, and the majority of experienced lawyers state they are a violation of the first amendment (I.E. The government can not prevent speech).
They can't expect anyone to pay for second rate product. If they don't carry the current single most famous british product, then they won't get my business.
And I love british TV. Coupling, New Tricks, Sherlock, are all fantastic. (Coupling is Steve Moffat's work pre-Dr. Who, New Tricks is Cold Case with humor)
Yes, parents are paranoid about teachers and day care workers, but their is no reasonable excuse to DNA test them. They do not commit more crimes than other professions nor do they have an easier time hiding from an investigation.
But police officers are very very hard to charge, let alone convict of a crime. In addition, they routinely contaminate crime scenes with their DNA, so they should have it taken if only to prevent the forensics teams from thinking that a random drop of cop blood came from the criminal suspect.
I see no reason not to require all police officers from giving DNA samples. But teachers and day care workers do not have those issues and furthermore do not get paid enough to charge them to $250 for the right to get a job.
Insurance is a profitable business. Which means with extended use, you ALWAYS pay more over the long term than you get back. This also means that there are three types of insurance.
1) Free insurance, like warranties. These are more like a guarantee of good service. You don't pay, so whatever you get is worth it.
2) Insurance for emergencies that would break you if you lost, because you need them and could not replace them by the next pay-check. Health, Life, AFLAC, cars, homes, etc. MAYBE even an expensive luxury item like a wedding ring or a TV that is your main/only source of entertainment. These it makes a lot of sense to pay more over time to be sure you have them.
3) Scam insurance for things that would be annoying but not a disaster if you lost them. Things like flight cancellation insurance, phone breakage/loss, pay off your credit card at death, etc. etc. You should be able to pay off those normally anyway or go with a cheaper/without for a month or two. Ccredit bill at death is a clear scam - just get regular life insurance it pays better, with less stupid rules to screw you over.
This clearly falls into scam insurance. If you can't afford to walk away from the tickets if the guy you want to see play is hurt and can't play, then do NOT buy the tickets in the first place.
But that is irrelevant. Only a die hard fan would care that much about particular players and die hard fans buy so many tickets that there is no way they will not end up giving the insurance company more money then they get back. It's like buying 100 TVs that break 10% of the time, then spending an extra 20% to insure that if one breaks, you will get your money back, rather than buying 115 TVs (cheaper and more working TVs)
If the study was done in India, that would be relevant. it was done in France. And you gave no study confirming your claim, so you are basically repeating anecdotal rumor.
Last common ancestor is a scientific sounding but irrelevant argument. If you had at least mentioned genetic similarity (92%, vs chimp at 98%), it would have SOUNDED relevant. But when it comes to the digestive tract, rats are more than sufficiently similar genetically to humans for this kind of testing. They eat the same things and like the same things as we do. That 8% difference is almost all about size, fur, tail, brain, and lifespan. The internal organs are remarkably similar to humans. Some estimates put them at 99% identical to humans.
Rats are used for three basic reasons: 1) genetic consistency (their is little difference between two rats if both were from the same scientific animal testing source) 2) Short lifespan (so we don't have to wait for natural deaths) 3) Cheap
First, those programs do work, they raise the birth rate. And those programs are NOT designed to raise the birth rate, just make it easier to raise a kid.
Second, when you fund half a road, you don't get much traffic. I am talking about making child raising cost you $0 in order to increase the birth rate, not reduce it so it isn't quite as expensive. Huge difference - as in the difference between a space program and a jet aircraft program.
Third, It is true that social values do determine birth rate, but you do NOT understand how. Our social values have not changed so much that we don't want children.
Instead what has happened is that women have realized that having children is a lot of work (translation: not paid enough for the work) and limits their career prospects (translation they can't afford a nanny and business does not encourage part time work etc.) The decline of religion crap is bullshit. Religion did nothing more than try to trick people into having more children by preventing contraceptives.
Besides, we control the culture that you are so sure is stopping us from having kids. Your core argument supports my core argument that the problems are solvable. Yes, the end result would be a new culture, but it really is not relevant to the argument at hand. Either a new culture would come first to create the laws, or the end result of creating the laws I suggested would be a new culture.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, when you identify the source of a problem, you don't ignore it, you don't cease using the technology, you FIX IT.
This is not a new issue. Ten years ago, this issue was so widely known, a TV show made fun of it ( Better Off Ted,Season 1, episode 4, Racial Sensitivity,).
So if we have not sufficiently trained AI to detect people of color and women, then start TRAINING them to do it.
Or you could just stop trying to track everyone without a warrant.
OK, so they fond a worm hole that lets you travel with a longer subjective time but an 'objective' (objective referring to an outside observer) time of almost nil. Call this a long-cut worm hole.
The solution is obvious - travel through the long-cut worm hole at a speed approaching that of light. Say 99.999% C. As per Einstein, traveling at such a speed causes you to age less than someone in comparison to a twin back on Earth. In other words, it reduces your subjective time, but does not affect the objective time.
Net Net, you can now travel via the long-cut worm hole, taking close to nil observer time and also close to nil subjective time.
Now your long-cut worm hole acts like a short-cut worm hole.
To me the question isn't why they they are underestimating the problem, but instead why are they concentrating on self driving cars?
Obviously the first applications should be self driving Buses, Long Haul 18 wheelers, Garbage Trucks, etc. etc.
Things where slower speed is acceptable whose route is mostly pre-planned, where companies are paying a man to drive rather than someone is driving themselves.
The people objecting are hoping that if they report actual flight time vs estimated total travel time it will somehow speed up the trip.
I assure you, airlines hate delays more than you do. Time is quite literally their money. If they can cut travel time, they save energy costs - even on the tarmac awaiting lift off costs them energy, which costs $.
They are doing a better job by accurately informing you when you will arrive, so that you family can pick you up with less wasted waiting time for them. Your waiting time won't be shorter if they don't tell you about it.
When you sign up for Social Media, you are NOT the customer, you are the product.
Would you a steak company to have a customer service line for the cattle? No. Only the paying customers get customer service.
If you willing sign up to be the product, do not expect any service except a knife in the front. Not the back, the front.
Some simple advice - when you as "what the @#$", you should consider "Is this person making an obtuse joke or is he serious?"
Or he was making a joke and you did not get it. A sure sign of this is the questioning of their intelligence.
I am pretty sure you can't offer a reward for catching a bug hunter. Not unless they have committed a crime.
I know that software companies assume all bug hunters are actually criminals, but you still have to prove they used the bugs to commit a crime, you can't just offer a reward for catching a bug hunter.
Yeah, I know some of you are thinking the poster meant to write a reward TO bug hunters, but we are talking about a major tech companies here, not people known for actually caring about the bugs in their products.
High probability of abuse. They should require a doctor to prescribe the drug for each individual (human, animal, or plant), only after physically examining that individual.
Those three are: 1) Legal Liability. 2) Fear of the new, and 3) AI not correctly predicting human stupidity.
Issue 1 is a political lobby away from being removed. Some company, like Tesla, develops the technology and pays a political lobby to get Congress to allow the company to self insure all the vehicles they sell - either in the new market or the 2nd hand market - if Tesla sells the used car. Boom, that issue vanishes.
Issue 2 is irrelevant. The first AI vehicles will be commercial vehicles, not cars. Long Haul trucking, Garbage Trucks, Public Buses, will be the innovators. Their companies will all pay attention to long term cost - including the cost to hire drivers, and ignore the human fear. Or they will be beaten in the market by companies that do.
Issue 3 is the only problem without an obvious solution, but technology is ALREADY better than a human in almost everything except this issue. The benefits of slower driving and fewer stupid human first hand drivers already outweigh the lessened ability to predict what a stupid human in the other car will do.
I suspect it will say "false"
I do this: Each month, try a new subscription and cancel an old one.
After a year, pick one to have permanently, and try the others again.
Version 3 had lots of changes, eventually becoming 3.5
Version 4 was OK, but came too quick after 3.5. People did not want to buy a whole new set of books.
Version 5 is good and came long enough after 4, and has lasted long enough without a 5.5.
It also helps that websites like roll20.net make it easier to play online.
That is pure bullshit. You have made the mistake of assuming luck refers to good luck. Yes that is important - being born near Silicon Valley during the right time period made a ton of people into millionaires and even billionaires. But there is more at work here.
It just as often refers to the absence of bad luck. Not getting an expensive and time consuming health issue (for you or a close relative) at the age of 19. Being born in a school district that has a computer class. Not having your parents lose their job weeks after you applied to college, but too late to apply for scholarships.
When you have bad luck, no amount of merit can surmount it. Think about what would have happened to Stephen Hawking if his disease had started being serious when he turned 17 rather than 21. Still graduate college with grades good enough to go to Oxford? Perhaps. Or what if the disease had progressed as they originally thought and killed him at 24. Would he have finished his life work? No way.
Here are the ways my friends got lucky, that we think of as "normal", rather than lucky.
Born to a Democratic country.
Born to the 'majority' race of this country.
Born to middle class parents that could afford the many expensive college prep steps we took.
Born to parents that valued education/
Born in a well off state that actually puts money to education.
Born smart (YES, THAT'S LUCK, NOT MERIT.) Merit refers to the work you do, not the intelligence you were born with.
No major diseases in ourselves, our siblings, or parents.
Grandparents did not have to move in, taking up parental time and money.
No major crimes/disaster/deaths in our immediate family.
Peaceful country. Try to make a start-up in a war zone.
Those are just a few of the obvious ones.
Every single millionaire I have ever met has been EXTREMELY lucky. But the same is not true of intelligence or hard work. Many are stupid and/or lazy.
Merit is helpful in becoming well off, but not the determining factor by any means.
The average location should always be the center of the orbit.
The planets orbit the sun, so that should be their average location.
QED, shouldn't all planets be be equally close?
Ideally, contracts that are not approved by lawyers on both sides need to be vetted and rated by a government lawyer. Any unusual terms would have to be high lighted and moved to a summary in the first paragraph, along with a general grade, from AF.
Any terms that the government lawyer deems unenforceable or illegal would automatically grant an F. Corporations routinely put in terms that most lawyers consider to be unenforceable as a form of intimidation.
President Trump's loyalty gag contracts (https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trumps-unlawful-gag-orders-and-why-he-cant-handle-the-truth/) are just one example of such tactics. No other President used such terms, and the majority of experienced lawyers state they are a violation of the first amendment (I.E. The government can not prevent speech).
You can play lots of videogames that are not internet connected. No single player game has the kind of crap they are describing.
But anyone looking at chat websites knows that when you connect anonymous people on the internet you get a crap-storm.
The gaming aspect is not relevant, it is the anonymous, apparently temporary communication afforded by the internet that is the problem.
They can't expect anyone to pay for second rate product. If they don't carry the current single most famous british product, then they won't get my business.
And I love british TV. Coupling, New Tricks, Sherlock, are all fantastic. (Coupling is Steve Moffat's work pre-Dr. Who, New Tricks is Cold Case with humor)
And who wants to tell their parents, that hey, do what you want, your newborn can take it, he's tough
Study showed an impairment of creativity DURING the process of listening, not afterwards.
At no point did they measure creativity after the music was done.
Journalists should be fired, and the editor demoted for making this stupid mistake.
Yes, parents are paranoid about teachers and day care workers, but their is no reasonable excuse to DNA test them. They do not commit more crimes than other professions nor do they have an easier time hiding from an investigation.
But police officers are very very hard to charge, let alone convict of a crime. In addition, they routinely contaminate crime scenes with their DNA, so they should have it taken if only to prevent the forensics teams from thinking that a random drop of cop blood came from the criminal suspect.
I see no reason not to require all police officers from giving DNA samples. But teachers and day care workers do not have those issues and furthermore do not get paid enough to charge them to $250 for the right to get a job.
Insurance is a profitable business. Which means with extended use, you ALWAYS pay more over the long term than you get back. This also means that there are three types of insurance.
1) Free insurance, like warranties. These are more like a guarantee of good service. You don't pay, so whatever you get is worth it.
2) Insurance for emergencies that would break you if you lost, because you need them and could not replace them by the next pay-check. Health, Life, AFLAC, cars, homes, etc. MAYBE even an expensive luxury item like a wedding ring or a TV that is your main/only source of entertainment. These it makes a lot of sense to pay more over time to be sure you have them.
3) Scam insurance for things that would be annoying but not a disaster if you lost them. Things like flight cancellation insurance, phone breakage/loss, pay off your credit card at death, etc. etc. You should be able to pay off those normally anyway or go with a cheaper/without for a month or two. Ccredit bill at death is a clear scam - just get regular life insurance it pays better, with less stupid rules to screw you over.
This clearly falls into scam insurance. If you can't afford to walk away from the tickets if the guy you want to see play is hurt and can't play, then do NOT buy the tickets in the first place.
But that is irrelevant. Only a die hard fan would care that much about particular players and die hard fans buy so many tickets that there is no way they will not end up giving the insurance company more money then they get back. It's like buying 100 TVs that break 10% of the time, then spending an extra 20% to insure that if one breaks, you will get your money back, rather than buying 115 TVs (cheaper and more working TVs)
If the study was done in India, that would be relevant. it was done in France. And you gave no study confirming your claim, so you are basically repeating anecdotal rumor.
Last common ancestor is a scientific sounding but irrelevant argument. If you had at least mentioned genetic similarity (92%, vs chimp at 98%), it would have SOUNDED relevant. But when it comes to the digestive tract, rats are more than sufficiently similar genetically to humans for this kind of testing. They eat the same things and like the same things as we do. That 8% difference is almost all about size, fur, tail, brain, and lifespan. The internal organs are remarkably similar to humans. Some estimates put them at 99% identical to humans.
Rats are used for three basic reasons:
1) genetic consistency (their is little difference between two rats if both were from the same scientific animal testing source)
2) Short lifespan (so we don't have to wait for natural deaths)
3) Cheap
Most useful if it also stops people from using 1234567 as their password
First, those programs do work, they raise the birth rate. And those programs are NOT designed to raise the birth rate, just make it easier to raise a kid.
Second, when you fund half a road, you don't get much traffic. I am talking about making child raising cost you $0 in order to increase the birth rate, not reduce it so it isn't quite as expensive. Huge difference - as in the difference between a space program and a jet aircraft program.
Third, It is true that social values do determine birth rate, but you do NOT understand how. Our social values have not changed so much that we don't want children.
Instead what has happened is that women have realized that having children is a lot of work (translation: not paid enough for the work) and limits their career prospects (translation they can't afford a nanny and business does not encourage part time work etc.) The decline of religion crap is bullshit. Religion did nothing more than try to trick people into having more children by preventing contraceptives.
Besides, we control the culture that you are so sure is stopping us from having kids. Your core argument supports my core argument that the problems are solvable. Yes, the end result would be a new culture, but it really is not relevant to the argument at hand. Either a new culture would come first to create the laws, or the end result of creating the laws I suggested would be a new culture.