no. Photons have momentum unlike a massless point
no. Photons have momentum unlike a massless point
Yes, and I admitted it's flawed. But the flaws you point to don't nullify the conclusion they just require complications. Has your physics teacher ever mentioned the frictionless surface, or the massless point. These don't exist either. Nor does a maxwell's demon. but all provide insight. Don't get bogged in the weeds.
I'm going to get yelled at for posting this but there's this science fiction short story called "manna" by marshall brain. For the record I'm not marshall brain. In fact the story is rather poorly written. But it does contain a brilliant insight on this problem so I recommend it in the same way would recommend the poorly written but insightful science fiction of the 40s, 50s, 60s. A must read.
SO anyhow getting back on track here. These robots would not be used if caused the company to make less money or to produce fewer products. therefore someone is profiting from this. At the same time we just freed up some labor. Now if you have ever studied the debate between Hayak and Keynes economics you know that this presents a problem. If new higher paying jobs don't srping up to use that labor then one can enter a stalled economic situation where one hasn't increased the velocity or the total amount of money in circulation but has created dis-employment. the classic example is the 2 person village where the candle maker buys 2 loves of bread everyday from the baker, and baker buys 2 candles from thecandle maker. this cycle repeats every day. One day the baker decided to same some money to send to his sick mother, so he bought one candle. The next day the candlestick maker only had money to buy one loaf of bread. and the cycle now became one of a lower productivity. Everyone would like to be working at a higher level of productivity but there's no way to get there. The baker only has enough money to buy the resources he needs to make one loaf. He can't make 2 if he wanted to. Same for the candle maker. The a Mr Keynes comes to town and loans the baker enough money to make two loves and the candle stick maker enough money to make two candles. They then resume the 2 by 2 economy. In return Mr. Keynes, who was actually the tax man in disguise, gets more taxes in the long run.
Yes you can poke some holes in that reductionist example but the point is there are different nash equilubria in economines and you can through no fault of your own end up in a lousy one.
As we become more productive with robots one can either go to an economy where fewer people are employed and fewer people buy the now cheaper goods while wealth concentrates into the few people wiht enough capital to buy these expensive robots, or you could consider an increasingly socialist econonmy where we the increasing cheapness of goods lets us lead more procutive happy lives or lives with more leisure. It requires preventing excess capital accumualtion to achieve. This doesn't mean everyone has to be equal. But one can realistically consider a miniium basic income economy (e.g. finland is experimenting with this) where industrious people are free to earn more by working. Everyone can follow their hearts once the robots are able to make cheap buildings and grow cheap food and make cheap clothing, without it being a burden on the people who choose to work or create or invest.
Yes you can quibble, but if you extrapolate to infinite cheapness clearly I'm right. So ar what level of finite cheapness am I also mostly right?
Anyhow read marshall brains story to see how this can be made plausible.
From the comments at your link, I don't see any consensus that the idea doesn't work.
It wouldn't cost much to model this in a simulator, and let a couple dozen pilots try it out. We'd find out pretty quick how easy or hard it really is. It would be an interesting semester project for some students at Embry-Riddle.
Headphones are a piss-poor substitute for walls.
So the guy's a pervert: does that mean his code quit working? Is he trying to fuck other contributors? Has he done anything to anyone without their consent?
I've worked with plenty of people in my time who are into things that I don't approve of, from voting for socialists to trying to be Heinlein characters, but if they don't bring it to the office, it's none of my business. That goes double for an open-source project where they're donating their work.
Enough with the goddamned neo-puritans. There's work to be done, for fuck's sake.
from what it says, it's the default. If so, that's assbackwards.
this is tacked onto the bottom of the linked article:
Update on March 27: the search feature has been added back, and is still exposing personal information. Microsoft hasn't explained why it reintroduced the feature again.
Unless your house is floating in the atlantic, this won't be an issue.
Prior to massive regulations insurance was affordable.
Um, that's if they're willing to sell it to you. I could not get insurance for epilepsy pre-ACA because the medications I needed were expensive, and also because people always called 911 after every seizure which meant routine ER visits, about two per month. Since insurers wanted to keep their insurance "affordable" for healthy dickheads trying to decide if they even needed it, that meant telling me GFY- which they did because there were no "massive regulations" preventing them.
Consumer Reports clearly forgot that 0 mph is a speed.
Pesky Theory of Relativity called, want's their "other car was moving" frame shift back.
I'm kinda dumbfounded this consumer freindly move wasn't squelched yet. After all the logic for the FCC nixing net neutrality and consumer privacy was because this stifles innovative revenue streams for productizing consumers. Actually I think they just said "bussiness innovation" for short. In anycase stopping robocalls seems like it will hurt someones revenue stream. You should write your congessman and demand to be productized more! Seriously, what's the angle here. My guess is that maybe the carrier's and google and all the rest want to prevent all the free robo calls and create a partner channel for authorized, paid, robocalls.
If this is true then why hasn't apple sent me a password reset notice? In this particular case I agree with them not paying the ransom as there's no way to verify the passwords would be deleted.
verifying 50 is not a convincer they have millions. turning over 5 to 10% of the number would be. The fact they could easily have done that and didn't tells me they don't have this.
Of course that didn't stop me from changing my password just in case.
At these prices, I lose money -- but I make it up in volume. -- Peter G. Alaquon