Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

wrote:
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:19:15 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:31:32 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

Because they didn't teleport into the middle of a road. The speed limit
near a tunnel with trees close enough to allow this should be low enough to
allow detection of hazards... edit

That's quite ridiculous.



Not at all! That's how a responsible driver should behave.

Just how slow should a driver go if there are trees within how far of the road???

Meanwhile, in Silicon Valley:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36793790







I've been driven in the USA but not driven myself. However I have driven a
reasonable amount in Canada and it seems quite similar. Hazards on Canadian
roads have warning speed limits. Some drivers are too macho or stupid to
heed these but autonomous cars will keep to these limits. So when they come
to a tunnel, even one with criminally negligent sight lines, they will be
able to stop.
Your problem is incompetently stated.

On Friday, 15 July 2016 16:03:58 UTC+2, wrote:
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 9:49:15 AM UTC-4, critter wrote:

I believe that society is badly corrupted by 'bargains' such as the Chinese cheapening of once expensive, manufactured products.

Since this is an astronomy forum, I assume that you are referring to cheap telescopes. In real dollars such scopes now cost about half what they did when I was a kid and are even better in some important ways. Had the scopes been this cheap back then I could have afforded a bigger scope or even a camera to use for astro-photography. Do you have a problem with that?

None at all. Had I not suffered from equipment poverty for much of my life I would never have begun ATM. ATM taught me a huge range of beneficial skills and knowledge which was put to good use in many other fields.

Others choose the small instrument route out of equipment poverty but will never enjoy the constant learning curve from design and hand fabrication of one's own kit. That is not to demean the pleasure, patience and knowledge they enjoy with a modest instrument.

These days one is completely spoilt for ATM knowledge. In my early days the only source of ATM knowledge were long out of date books at the reference library. So I had plenty of exercise riding my bike to the library as well.

The great thing about the Internet is the sharing of information to be endlessly reworked by the hive mind. One can pick and choose from the very best ideas and the hobby inevitably improves with each iteration. The Internet brings so many different skills and training to the fray that it is hard not to improve in most areas.

The free sharing of such knowledge is a fine example of how well the human race works together without the burden of requiring financial reward for services rendered. Of course the Internet has its negatives as well but one should blame the individuals involved rather than the network.

While I still envy those with a brace of APs, or other high end gear, I would not swap my ATM "constructions" for all these "priceless" toys. I would feel it far more necessary to use such expensive gear seriously. Or they would be seen as "wasted" in the eyes of many. Given the small number of nights with decent seeing they would still be wasted by my observing with them. So the ATM goes on [and on] but I have almost no guilt about not observing "seriously" during my every spare moment.

Regards pricing I do take advantage of bargains to pursue my endless hobbies. I just wish that our trinkets were not quite so cheap as a direct result of the abuse of human rights and freedoms. Thankfully the Internet also exposes the inhumanity of many global "leaders" try as they might to avoid Internet freedom from exposing their vile corruption. Mass, global tourism is constantly exposing the previously blindfolded to the reality beyond the filtered untruths back at home. Over time the crooks at the top will find themselves no longer able to continue their clumsy censorship for personal greed. Knowledge is empowering. It has never been so easy to become empowered..

On Friday, 15 July 2016 18:48:42 UTC+2, Razzmatazz wrote:

Well, you will always have dentists and plumbers and a host of other craftsmen too numerous to list. As well as entrepreneurs who will develop something nobody has thought of yet. And of course the entire entertainment industry which of course includes politicians and such. The sky's the limit really, so much opportunity, so little imagination. Making stuff is really only a tiny part of human existence when you think about it.

I would hope that dentists and plumbers would be the first to be "phased out." The ridiculously high sugar content of our diet is responsible for the first being in steady employment. While the fat in our diet keeps the latter busy.

Those whom "make stuff" have rarely been accorded the rewards they truly deserve in their own lifetimes. So prepare to become legendary as soon as you go to meet your "maker of all stuff." [Well, according to legend.] He seems to have survived by word of mouth advertising just as you have. ;-)

Let us hope that our progress as a result of global exposure to the Internet is allowed to blossom freely. And hopefully without being constantly impeded by the weakest links in our global society.

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:24:34 PM UTC+1, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 12:35:48 PM UTC-5, wrote:


So it turns out that you are both a warmingista AND a sockpuppet.

What's a sockpuppet? Is that something you play with at bedtime?

By the way, I called it last year, Trump would be the GOP presidential nominee. I bet money on it. Turned out I was correct, no? So I called my senator Mark Kirk (R-Il). Talked to him last week about trade and stuff - should I vote for Trump or? He said vote for or. No way, he said, don't waste your vote on Trump, he won't be elected. Darn! there goes my second bet. He said put your money on Rubio - word to the wise.

Word to the wise indeed, you disgraced yourself as a sockpuppet, the only person to attempt that in SAA, yet you are still making a nuisance of yourself with dumb social/political commentaries.

Stick to what you know best - a very limited magnification exercise and a whirling celestial sphere bound within your local horizon.

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 6:06:05 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:36:01 PM UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:

Consumption tax is highly regressive

That is not necessarily true at all. In fact, the more you buy the more consumption tax you pay.

That makes it less regressive than a poll tax. But it is still worse than a
progressive income tax, which is presumably the standard of comparison being used.

John Savard

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:27:33 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

In most cases, the car will be able to stop, because it will be aware
of the situation much earlier than a human driver. And where a human
will typically "swerve" (a poorly controlled maneuver), a computer
with much more input, much better reflexes, and the ability to
actually solve equations of motion, will be able to execute much more
precise maneuvers, increasing the range of safe recoveries.

In any case, it is primarily the car deciding what to do, based on
minimizing harm. It is not some programmer. The role of ethicists is
in finding ways to quantify harms and benefits in the general case.

However, the car will "make" the decision based on the criteria given to it by
the programmer. It won't choose its own criteria, by developing a moral code
through life experiences. So the car still won't be the *responsible party* for
the decision, even though it is acting autonomously at the time of the accident.

Although a machine could potentially have "better reflexes", there are good
reasons for society to be reluctant to allow self-driving cars even if doing so
would be a rational means of saving lives.

Now, if self-driving cars could *also* serve as an enforcement mechanism for a
significantly lower speed limit anywhere except on certain types of highways,
so that the question of a car hitting a pedestrian almost never arises, then
the _ethical_ concerns would be satisfied. But that would be economically
impractical, as fast automobile transport is considered to be greatly
beneficial.

John Savard

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 3:11:14 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:47:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

So the driver/passenger doesn't get to decide?

Thankfully, no.

That's just plain silly, because automated systems will continue to be far more
limited than human beings. So it *will* be possible for criminals to commit
assassination by putting sufficiently realistic dummies... or fresh corpses...
in front of moving cars, if no possibility of an override exists.

Machines aren't at the point that they can "deserve" trust.

John Savard

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 4:01:06 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Friday, 15 July 2016 16:03:58 UTC+2, wrote:
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 9:49:15 AM UTC-4, critter wrote:

I believe that society is badly corrupted by 'bargains' such as the Chinese cheapening of once expensive, manufactured products.

Since this is an astronomy forum, I assume that you are referring to cheap telescopes. In real dollars such scopes now cost about half what they did when I was a kid and are even better in some important ways. Had the scopes been this cheap back then I could have afforded a bigger scope or even a camera to use for astro-photography. Do you have a problem with that?

None at all.

Good. Then I'll delete the rest of your ramblings.

snip

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 3:34:52 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:27:33 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

In most cases, the car will be able to stop, because it will be aware
of the situation much earlier than a human driver. And where a human
will typically "swerve" (a poorly controlled maneuver), a computer
with much more input, much better reflexes, and the ability to
actually solve equations of motion, will be able to execute much more
precise maneuvers, increasing the range of safe recoveries.

In any case, it is primarily the car deciding what to do, based on
minimizing harm. It is not some programmer. The role of ethicists is
in finding ways to quantify harms and benefits in the general case.

However, the car will "make" the decision based on the criteria given to it
by the programmer.

peterson doesn't get that.

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 3:27:53 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 6:06:05 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:36:01 PM UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:

Consumption tax is highly regressive

That is not necessarily true at all. In fact, the more you buy the more consumption tax you pay.

That makes it less regressive than a poll tax. But it is still worse than a
progressive income tax, which is presumably the standard of comparison being used.

One leading example of a proposed consumption tax is the Fair Tax, which does not tax purchases up to the poverty line. You only pay tax on purchases in excess of the poverty line and everyone pays the same rate. Hence the name, FAIR Tax.