I think that the point is that if the relation is of the win-win kind, then it's more likely that the long term profits are going to be high.
The tricky part is to be able to take the occasional tough decision.
I follow this simple rule: Just say no to drugs that's been transported in another animals lower intestine, and you're safe.
Luckily the cat's ass variant is optional...
Actually, I'm rather addicted to caffeine, and that's slightly annoying as I get sick if I don't get coffee for a day or two.
Other than that, it's a rather harmless drug. (In concentrations that won't kill you immediately.) and i really enjoy my coffee.
It's standard treatment in Sweden. If the crime is non-trivial, the attorney almost always requests solitary confinement. The reason is to prevent the accused from interfering with the criminal investigation, but I think at least partly it's done in order to break the accused, helping the interrogations.
Sweden has been criticized by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture for this practice, but nothing seems to change.
I'd say that I am not that proud of our judicial system right now. This practice, the not-so-competent handling of Assange, the recent turn of events relating to a convicted serial killer (Tomas Quick) being found innocent for crime after crime, after withdrawing his own confessions, and the follow-up revelations of a closed boys-club judicial system - these events makes me ashamed and worried.
It's not necessarily attributed to malice, but it is certainly incompetence combined with the attitude among Swedish bureaucrats that the government is always right, always efficient, and certainly *never* wrong.
They need a rooster to keep them straight. Not kidding.
Yes, but the price is almost the only information consumers can base there decision on. That, and the packaging design.
The only way to get more information is to legislate. The food industry would be happy if they could sell processed shit wrapped in
a nice box, without bothering with involving fish at all.
It's actually "En stor stark och lite chips tack."
(Linux speaks swedish...)
Are you sure you are not confusing reality with something you saw on tv?
Before you argue more about this, write a program that does something really simple, like packing a few arbitrary objects in a box just big enough to fit them, and then come back to this discussion. ( I mean the task must be really simple, because it's something even a small child can do. )
See you in a couple of years
Why would a self driving car ever drive off a cliff?
Clearly it would rank available options and pick the lowest cost one.
Yes, in a science fiction fantasy world where True AI is working according to Asimov's laws.
In the actual world, real persons are going to outperform computers in any situation that's "tricky" to analyse,
and that will continue to be the case until the cars would be able to pass the Turing test.
The cars can be given better sensors (ir, radar, etc) and faster computers to give the algorithms an advantage,
but when it fails, it will fail in a way that a human would think is incomprehensibly stupid.
When the first autonomous car crashes into a kindergarten because it did something stupid, it will be hard to point
to the statistics and say that in the big picture, we're saving lives.
"I say we take off; nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." - Corporal Hicks, in "Aliens"