Sure, there are some differences between the two. The big one is that California hasn't yet destroyed its big sectors, high tech and agriculture. I give the state ten years to do both of those in. Maybe they'll whack Hollywood while they're at it, but I think that's a bit more resistant to bad governance.

I just happen to not believe you.

Then why does "our money" get used for so much corruption, graft, and outright illegal activity like governments spying on their citizens? I don't care that you're an idiot, I just care that you allow "our money" to get used on such stupid bullshit.

You know, we would have a healthier society, if I actually did have veto power over what my money got used for.

So what? They don't care enough to use their own money.

Ok, what's wrong with that? 50% markup doesn't sound unreasonable.

And they're unwilling to pay for it with their own money.

I don't see a new issue here. Caretaker robots have more potential for risk and harm than a ladder does, but that's it. It's a matter of making sure liability law is up to snuff.

For me the real problem is the liability generated by acting unsolicited on a patient's behalf. If a robot starts discerning what is good for a patient and acting on that basis, then the provider, the manufacturer, and perhaps the robot itself will become liable for the choices of the robot that turned out to be bad. If the liability already exists by law, then that's fine. If it doesn't, then you've just created a large cost that wasn't there before. So it is better for these affected parties in the latter case to just not make that decision even if it happens to cause harm for the patient. If you don't like that outcome, then figure out how to tool liability law to give the results you desire.

Yes, I mean that state.

Then educate yourself on these laws. I told you why they're different. It's not my responsibility to change your mind for you.

15 years at the bare minimum. I think that will result in at least a two thirds attrition rate over the time period. Circumstances change and 15 years is a long time to volunteer for something even if you really want it.

And my view is that the lack of serious bending of metal now will mean that they aren't going to achieve their aggressive schedule.

' This is exactly why these reports are complete bullshit. It's not about inequality of resource consumption. It's about the raw amount of people. If Africa were to continue on its current exponential rate of population growth, it would grow inside of a few centuries to the point where it's using more resources than the rest of the world.

It doesn't matter that certain parts of the world use more resources per capita. Even if you equalize resource consumption, you still end up with die-offs from overpopulation due to this exponential growth.

In other words, it's not the "random" countries with high per capita resource consumption, but negative population growth among natives (even the US would have negative population growth, if immigration were halted for a generation), but the many "specific" countries with high population growth rates.

Creating an enforced oligopoly is not just a "program". It's not just spending money. It's creation of a very considerable economic inefficiency combined with a substantial imposition on human freedom.

OTOH, we have plenty of examples of what happens when a country that is bad at fighting runs into a country that is good at fighting.

For example, we're nearing the 800th anniversary of Genghis Khan's invasion of Khwarezmia. The heartland of Khwarezmia is now Afghanistan which has never come close to restoring that ancient glory. That's what being bad at fighting can do for you. It can create military disasters which are still readily apparent after 800 years.

I'll also point out that merely spending money on war/defense doesn't make you good at fighting. Here, I'm in agreement that the US simply spends too much on military spending.

I'll be concerned by your concern when the level of "swathes of nonsense" rise to the level of the two major parties.

So they should instead wait till oil is no longer in demand and then build all this expensive infrastructure? Sounds like I'll have to go with the failed economist on this one.

Apparently, they're already allowing a pipeline to be built.

Which is easily solvable by building deep water ports. What problems of the world can Slashdot solve next?