yeah, as we know, if you are a hotdog eater, you are picky about the quality of your food.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
hey i take a taxi to the polls and eat at a restaurant to fortify myself for voting you insensitive clod!
you could also have a voting week.
These guys are way smarter than me. I mean I can write some perl scripts, but I have no idea how to tackle some of the "robot car" challenges.
For instance when to pull over... let's say there is a billboard with a picture of a police car with sirens flashing. Is that inconceivable? Would the robot car ever advance past it or just pull over? What if there are no safe places to pull over and an emergency vehicle needs to pass. Would the robot car know when it is appropriate to get itself stuck in a ditch (my thinking is that if there are 3 firetrucks and an ambulance trying to get by, driving into a ditch to let them pass is probably a smart move, but for a cop you probably want to continue to drive until there is a safe pull over spot)
I would love a car that I can sleep or code or read in. I'd prefer a train, but at this point driving takes up too much of my life.
I still use and love my x60t. It's a great linux laptop. I could live with 8gb of soldered ram because it's 8 gb, although a bad ram chip will not be fun.
The real thing I want to know is how Linux-friendly this new laptop is, and can you get it without a Windows tax.
Or lynx or an html2text script. Or copy the documentation to a client machine.
TFA is crap and has nothing to do with TFP which is also crap.
A quote from the Introduction of the paper (The alive reader will notice that they failed to spellcheck it):
Ironically, smart machines are invaluable for considering what they might do
to us and when they might do it. This paper uses the most versatile of smart
machines – a run-of-the-mill computer – to simulate one particular vision of hu-
man replacement. Our simulated economy – an overlapping generations model
– is bare bones. It features two types of workers consuming two goods for two
periods. Yet it admits a large range of dynamic outcomes, some of which are
The model’s two types of agents are called high-tech workers and low-tech work-
ers. The first group has a comparative advantage at analytical tasks, the sec-
ond in empathetic and interpersonal tasks. Both work full time, but only when
young. High-tech workers produce new software code, which adds to the ex-
isting stock of code. They are compensated by licensing their newly produced
code for immediate use and by selling rights to its future use. Thestock of code
– new plus old – is combined with the stock of capital to produce automatable
goods and services (hereafter referred to as ‘goods’). Goods can beconsumed
or used as capital. Unlike high-tech workers, low-tech workers are right brainers
– artists, musicians, priests, astrologers, psychologists, etc. They produce the
model’s other good, human services (hereafter referred to as ‘services’). The ser-
vice sector does not use capital as an input, just the labor of high and low-tech
Code references not just software but, more generally, rules and instructions
for generating output from capital. Because of this, code is both created
byand is a substitute for the analytical labor provided by high-tech workers
in the good (autmomatable) sector. Code is not to be thought of as accumulating
in a quantitative way (anyone who has worked on a large software project can
testify that fewer lines of code often mean a better program) but rather in
Probably, but wouldn't a bathtub filled with jello be all squishy wishy wooo? NARF!
Further we don't criminalize other behaviors that increase risk of infections, *like eating raw meat, and or going to the movies when you have the sniffles*.
To repeat, it is legal to go to the movies when you have the sniffles, and to eat raw meat.
Having sex with a teenager is already a crime (statuatory rape), and knowingly infecting someone in HIV is deliberately infecting someone.
That's a far cry from criminalizing not taking every possible precaution for not getting an infection.
There is a risk of dying from seizures and a risk of dying from the vaccine.
not a reason to refuse a vaccine that saves a million lives a year.
The vaccine reduces your risk of contracting the disease when exposed (but does not eliminate it). It's less effective than behavior, say wearing a mask in crowds and frequent handwashing. Do you propose we have handwashing police? Or that certified handwashers should be exempt from vaccinations?
Further we don't criminalize other behaviors that increase risk of infections, like eating raw meat, and or going to the movies when you have the sniffles.
I am all for vaccination. Overall it is a smart move. Measles could potentially become an epidemic. In my judgement the risk analysis seems very favorable towards vaccination. However highly trained experts do disagree on the suitability of vaccine for all people, and we should not legislate away freedom based on opinion.
You might think I'm moronic, but when you find out that I bought platinum plated DDR, you will change your ultra high-fidelity tune
...will be able to see the value of these cables. If you idea of fine dining is hotdogs and cheetos while watching Gilligan's island, then you won't be able to tell the difference. You might as well use your crappy coax cable with duct tape on it for your streaming audio!
But if you actually want to reduce the latency between your brain and pure audio bliss (and also have a higher TCP window size), then these cables are a *requirement*.
As AC said, YES \o/
But you don't have to drink coffee. It's a choice. What you are proposing is tantamount to mandatory coffee drinking for long drives because of "the numbers". In all likelihood mandatory coffee drinking on long drives probably would save lives, but we are not legally mandated to do what is statistically propitious for ourselves or others.
In the law's eyes, you cannot legally (by deliberate act or recklessness) cause harm to another person. Certainly if someone HAD measles they should be quarantined. Further peopel should be encouraged to get vaccinated. That is reasonable. I believe that your position is unreasonable.
It is not reasonable to criminalized people who fail to get a vaccine with a 2/1000 of SEVERE side-effects and a 1/100 chance of minor side effects when there is only the tiniest risk of exposure probably less than 1/100000. We do not live in a minority report where you can criminalize people for Risk of Possibly Harming you at some point in the future. However, if someone gets measles and then infects others.... Well at that point then maybe we can consider if a crime has been commit (most likely a crime of negligence) which they could have done even if they had been vaccinated, but hopefully whether or nto they had been vaccinated would be relevant evidence in their case.