Slashdot Mirror

I'm just getting off about ten years of unemployment as a software engineer.

How closely were your loss of your job and subsequent inability to get another one correlated with your claims of God talking to you? http://www.goodnewsjim.com/

Natural Language is actually easy to code at this point since nouns correspond to objects in the database. Verbs are just actions on the nouns. Adjectives change the noun's object by its style. Adverbs adjust how a verb is described. Natural Language actually comes easily here.

Actually, there are natural languages (tribal languages in South America and Oceania) that don't have anything that could be called nouns, adjectives or verbs. The only traits that are common to all natural languages known to linguists (my mother is one, hence my knowledge) are that you can:

1. Interrogate (ask) about the status of something.
2. Present a claim.
3. Express an imagined, hypothetical claim.

Of course, for practical purposes in computer science what you're saying applies. If any of the recently contacted (let alone uncontacted) peoples at some point decide to explore the world outside the boundaries they've decided to stay within for now (governments in the countries within the territories of which those tribes reside have deemed it best and most fair to just leave those tribes alone). Fascinatingly, if the Indian government ever wanted to do something else than throw coconuts to the Sentinelese as a friendly gesture (they have responded with hostility to anyone going closer to their island) some tiny cameras placed with drones could be used to make recordings of their interactions with each other and with thousands of hours of such footage, maybe as powerful AI as Watson or more could make sense of it. Parsing the language into phonemes (tiniest information carrying "units" in a language) and actions performed, objects used etc. in a systematic way would enable a new level of understanding.

Also translation between languages is easier because the AI has stuff in context and isn't challenged by words that have several meanings...

As long as you acknowledge that "context" refers to an extremely broad set of data. Keep in mind that in some languages - especially some Asian languages - context must include the gender of the speaker, the relationship between the speaker and listener, the intention (insult or reconciliation), formality of the situation, length of conversation so far etc. The very same sentence when said by a different speaker to the same listener can instead of a fond compliment be a grave insult. Or just perverted if the speaker has the "wrong" gender for saying exactly that sentence. And the choice of words after ~X minutes of conversation also affects what meaning your words have (are you still reserved, trusting, doubtful...).

Actually this whole situation is perfectly clear and obvious to me, but maybe this isn't obvious to other people. I should reopen my AI blog. I closed it 10 years ago because I didn't want to work on a vision recognition software program like Kinect ended up being. That's too much work for a single person. But I could write an Artificial Intelligence Blog. That I could do. I'll reopen it. Here is my old blog

I think you've underestimated how complicated natural languages actually are or maybe you've learnt more since you wrote that. I'm lucky enough to speak two completely different languages natively and when I began my CS studies and the first language I learnt after playing around with basic in school was Java and immediately thought that there's great potential for me to write a translation program since being fully bilingual I have such a good grasp of how languages work. My idea was to just make nouns, verbs and adjectives as "meta classes" which contain multiple context-dependent translation pairs so that the "words" in the translated-into-language can "ask" the surrounding words in the translated-from-language a set of questions before settling on the final translated word. I figured that that way I can solve the problem with homonyms in one language normally not being homonyms in others. Maybe I wa

Step 1) Make an advanced SHRDLU that does its best guess of true physics. This would be DARPA's chance of making a real time advanced physics simulator. This would let the computer imagine stuff, like what would happen in collisions for new states. So it'd have an idea of how one thing could change another.

Step 2) Database a ton of items into it... Now this is hardwork to put in every object you can, but you'd only have to put a few in to start to test your similator. Get as good as a simulator you can until the next tech comes out.

Wait for tech: Vision detection that can recognize objects based on a known list of models. This tech would look at a scene, and figure out what it is looking at such as a pencil, desk and computer. I believe once you have the tech to recognize objects, you can even make a better vision detection algorithm. Two reasons: A) Objects you recognize don't need to be looked at as part of other objects. B) You'd know what you're looking at better based on the context of where you're at. If you see trees, you're probably outside, but if you see a television and a couch, you're indoors. So you'd know what is around you.

Natural Language is actually easy to code at this point since nouns correspond to objects in the database. Verbs are just actions on the nouns. Adjectives change the noun's object by its style. Adverbs adjust how a verb is described. Natural Language actually comes easily here. Also translation between languages is easier because the AI has stuff in context and isn't challenged by words that have several meanings...

Actually this whole situation is perfectly clear and obvious to me, but maybe this isn't obvious to other people. I should reopen my AI blog. I closed it 10 years ago because I didn't want to work on a vision recognition software program like Kinect ended up being. That's too much work for a single person. But I could write an Artificial Intelligence Blog. That I could do. I'll reopen it. Here is my old blog

I've theorized AI before back in like 2002. I figure Natural Language is straightforward if you describe it in a 3d imagination. My old page I'm not really tempted to get into AI as a solo project though myself as it would be over a life time of coding, and there is no profit in it until you have it completed. What point is there in being intelligent, hard working and broke?

Okay, lets say there is an actual bubble, and places are hiring, how do I get a position? I've tried online job boards, and I'll find 300 technical recruiters who say they're thoroughly impressed with what I have on my resume, but I've only ever had three interviews in the past 10 years from these people. There has to be a better way. On paper, I should be in demand, I've programmed my entire life and can make Android and ios aps.

All I've figured I can do is try and write my own games and be entrepreneurial. Is now a good time to spam out resumes again?

My Resume if anyone is interested.

As far as entrepreneurial things not listed on the resume, I'm currently at the tail end of a system to play Game Master Driven RPGs(GMDRPG) online with friends. I believe my system has a lot of critical features ROLL20 doesn't have. I think tomorrow or the next day I'll be recruiting people from reddit.com/r/rpg to play. I'm kind of wondering how a public RPG session is going to play out even though I have features to allow people to observe if I get over 8 players. It took me several hundred hours of coding to get this far.

I would hope in Q&A with a man claiming God does not exist, the counter view of a man knowing God exists would be healthy for discussion.

I'm a man that knows God loves everyone. We're called in this life to also love everyone. Jesus is LORD.

The first miracle that I experienced was God spoke to me,"Good News" then my dad handed me a Good News Bible.
You can read the full story here

The other miracle that I experienced was God answered my prayer for my book via IM.
You can read the short miracle here and my book is free

As a Christian, I am no enemy of science. I feel when we pray for cures to diseases and elimination of hunger, God helps the scientists and find cures and better farming methods. I have no issue with evolution, and I still believe God created it all.

I always like honest seekers. I have a book I wrote that you can get free in ebook format. I figure to make it free because I'm not writing for money, but to help more people learn about God. People might not believe me, but I know God exists for a fact, he loves us all, Jesus is LORD. And God approved of that book. Victor writes about applying spiritual truths to your life in the first half. In the second half I write more about answering modern questions to Christianity,"How can Evolution and Creationism coexist?" and "How can God be good and all powerful when suffering exists on Earth?"

I can tell you for a fact that God loves you :) God wants us all to live together in love and peace. We're to love people who even wrong us, and defeat evil by being good in all situations. There are a lot of people who spaz out at the mention of Christianity being good for society, but what is wrong with love and peace?

I don't see conflict with Christianity and Science. I think that is normally just the result of bad theology. The tapes should be out for everyone to analyze. I think there should be more discussions because bad theology makes some Christians misunderstand science, and worse it makes scientists think that God might not be the real and awesome dude that he is.

People also get bent out of shape that they can't use science to prove God exists. Why should you be able to create a scientific experiment that could repetitively force the hand of God? That simply doesn't make sense. If God always did the same thing in the same situation, how is God any different than one of the cosmic laws he's made? You cannot reduce God into god-in-the-box, and you shouldn't be able to. Scripture even says you will not find God through worldly wisdom, but only through preaching.

Many modern atheists have bad theology. They think: How does an all powerful and good God let bad things happen? God operates under ways we cannot understand. For instance: God's goal is not to make your life on Earth a luxurious experience. God's goal might be to maximize the people getting to Heaven. God can allow any amount of finite suffering to happen in order to prevent infinite suffering. God is the only being in reality that can bring people to Heaven where there is peace, love, joy, and no suffering forever. No other being can prevent infinite suffering besides God himself, so why would you want to judge his methods? He himself did not shy away from suffering himself, but died on the cross, proving how much he loves you.

Here are some articles if you would like to know more:
Debunking the Epicurean Fallacy
Exploring the book of Job and why it is bad to judge God.
God's ways are above our ways
God is good, a rebuttal to modern atheists
Why does God allow suffering, part 1
Why does God allow suffering, part 2
The Affect Effect or Order Theory, how God understands the Butterfly Effect

I can tell you for a fact that God loves you :) God wants us all to live together in love and peace. We're to love people who even wrong us, and defeat evil by being good in all situations. There are a lot of people who spaz out at the mention of Christianity being good for society, but what is wrong with love and peace?

I don't see conflict with Christianity and Science. I think that is normally just the result of bad theology. The tapes should be out for everyone to analyze. I think there should be more discussions because bad theology makes some Christians misunderstand science, and worse it makes scientists think that God might not be the real and awesome dude that he is.

People also get bent out of shape that they can't use science to prove God exists. Why should you be able to create a scientific experiment that could repetitively force the hand of God? That simply doesn't make sense. If God always did the same thing in the same situation, how is God any different than one of the cosmic laws he's made? You cannot reduce God into god-in-the-box, and you shouldn't be able to. Scripture even says you will not find God through worldly wisdom, but only through preaching.

Many modern atheists have bad theology. They think: How does an all powerful and good God let bad things happen? God operates under ways we cannot understand. For instance: God's goal is not to make your life on Earth a luxurious experience. God's goal might be to maximize the people getting to Heaven. God can allow any amount of finite suffering to happen in order to prevent infinite suffering. God is the only being in reality that can bring people to Heaven where there is peace, love, joy, and no suffering forever. No other being can prevent infinite suffering besides God himself, so why would you want to judge his methods? He himself did not shy away from suffering himself, but died on the cross, proving how much he loves you.

Here are some articles if you would like to know more:
Debunking the Epicurean Fallacy
Exploring the book of Job and why it is bad to judge God.
God's ways are above our ways
God is good, a rebuttal to modern atheists
Why does God allow suffering, part 1
Why does God allow suffering, part 2
The Affect Effect or Order Theory, how God understands the Butterfly Effect

I can tell you for a fact that God loves you :) God wants us all to live together in love and peace. We're to love people who even wrong us, and defeat evil by being good in all situations. There are a lot of people who spaz out at the mention of Christianity being good for society, but what is wrong with love and peace?

I don't see conflict with Christianity and Science. I think that is normally just the result of bad theology. The tapes should be out for everyone to analyze. I think there should be more discussions because bad theology makes some Christians misunderstand science, and worse it makes scientists think that God might not be the real and awesome dude that he is.

People also get bent out of shape that they can't use science to prove God exists. Why should you be able to create a scientific experiment that could repetitively force the hand of God? That simply doesn't make sense. If God always did the same thing in the same situation, how is God any different than one of the cosmic laws he's made? You cannot reduce God into god-in-the-box, and you shouldn't be able to. Scripture even says you will not find God through worldly wisdom, but only through preaching.

Many modern atheists have bad theology. They think: How does an all powerful and good God let bad things happen? God operates under ways we cannot understand. For instance: God's goal is not to make your life on Earth a luxurious experience. God's goal might be to maximize the people getting to Heaven. God can allow any amount of finite suffering to happen in order to prevent infinite suffering. God is the only being in reality that can bring people to Heaven where there is peace, love, joy, and no suffering forever. No other being can prevent infinite suffering besides God himself, so why would you want to judge his methods? He himself did not shy away from suffering himself, but died on the cross, proving how much he loves you.

Here are some articles if you would like to know more:
Debunking the Epicurean Fallacy
Exploring the book of Job and why it is bad to judge God.
God's ways are above our ways
God is good, a rebuttal to modern atheists
Why does God allow suffering, part 1
Why does God allow suffering, part 2
The Affect Effect or Order Theory, how God understands the Butterfly Effect

I can tell you for a fact that God loves you :) God wants us all to live together in love and peace. We're to love people who even wrong us, and defeat evil by being good in all situations. There are a lot of people who spaz out at the mention of Christianity being good for society, but what is wrong with love and peace?

I don't see conflict with Christianity and Science. I think that is normally just the result of bad theology. The tapes should be out for everyone to analyze. I think there should be more discussions because bad theology makes some Christians misunderstand science, and worse it makes scientists think that God might not be the real and awesome dude that he is.

People also get bent out of shape that they can't use science to prove God exists. Why should you be able to create a scientific experiment that could repetitively force the hand of God? That simply doesn't make sense. If God always did the same thing in the same situation, how is God any different than one of the cosmic laws he's made? You cannot reduce God into god-in-the-box, and you shouldn't be able to. Scripture even says you will not find God through worldly wisdom, but only through preaching.

Many modern atheists have bad theology. They think: How does an all powerful and good God let bad things happen? God operates under ways we cannot understand. For instance: God's goal is not to make your life on Earth a luxurious experience. God's goal might be to maximize the people getting to Heaven. God can allow any amount of finite suffering to happen in order to prevent infinite suffering. God is the only being in reality that can bring people to Heaven where there is peace, love, joy, and no suffering forever. No other being can prevent infinite suffering besides God himself, so why would you want to judge his methods? He himself did not shy away from suffering himself, but died on the cross, proving how much he loves you.

Here are some articles if you would like to know more:
Debunking the Epicurean Fallacy
Exploring the book of Job and why it is bad to judge God.
God's ways are above our ways
God is good, a rebuttal to modern atheists
Why does God allow suffering, part 1
Why does God allow suffering, part 2
The Affect Effect or Order Theory, how God understands the Butterfly Effect

I can tell you for a fact that God loves you :) God wants us all to live together in love and peace. We're to love people who even wrong us, and defeat evil by being good in all situations. There are a lot of people who spaz out at the mention of Christianity being good for society, but what is wrong with love and peace?

I don't see conflict with Christianity and Science. I think that is normally just the result of bad theology. The tapes should be out for everyone to analyze. I think there should be more discussions because bad theology makes some Christians misunderstand science, and worse it makes scientists think that God might not be the real and awesome dude that he is.

People also get bent out of shape that they can't use science to prove God exists. Why should you be able to create a scientific experiment that could repetitively force the hand of God? That simply doesn't make sense. If God always did the same thing in the same situation, how is God any different than one of the cosmic laws he's made? You cannot reduce God into god-in-the-box, and you shouldn't be able to. Scripture even says you will not find God through worldly wisdom, but only through preaching.

Many modern atheists have bad theology. They think: How does an all powerful and good God let bad things happen? God operates under ways we cannot understand. For instance: God's goal is not to make your life on Earth a luxurious experience. God's goal might be to maximize the people getting to Heaven. God can allow any amount of finite suffering to happen in order to prevent infinite suffering. God is the only being in reality that can bring people to Heaven where there is peace, love, joy, and no suffering forever. No other being can prevent infinite suffering besides God himself, so why would you want to judge his methods? He himself did not shy away from suffering himself, but died on the cross, proving how much he loves you.

Here are some articles if you would like to know more:
Debunking the Epicurean Fallacy
Exploring the book of Job and why it is bad to judge God.
God's ways are above our ways
God is good, a rebuttal to modern atheists
Why does God allow suffering, part 1
Why does God allow suffering, part 2
The Affect Effect or Order Theory, how God understands the Butterfly Effect

I can tell you for a fact that God loves you :) God wants us all to live together in love and peace. We're to love people who even wrong us, and defeat evil by being good in all situations. There are a lot of people who spaz out at the mention of Christianity being good for society, but what is wrong with love and peace?

I don't see conflict with Christianity and Science. I think that is normally just the result of bad theology. The tapes should be out for everyone to analyze. I think there should be more discussions because bad theology makes some Christians misunderstand science, and worse it makes scientists think that God might not be the real and awesome dude that he is.

People also get bent out of shape that they can't use science to prove God exists. Why should you be able to create a scientific experiment that could repetitively force the hand of God? That simply doesn't make sense. If God always did the same thing in the same situation, how is God any different than one of the cosmic laws he's made? You cannot reduce God into god-in-the-box, and you shouldn't be able to. Scripture even says you will not find God through worldly wisdom, but only through preaching.

Many modern atheists have bad theology. They think: How does an all powerful and good God let bad things happen? God operates under ways we cannot understand. For instance: God's goal is not to make your life on Earth a luxurious experience. God's goal might be to maximize the people getting to Heaven. God can allow any amount of finite suffering to happen in order to prevent infinite suffering. God is the only being in reality that can bring people to Heaven where there is peace, love, joy, and no suffering forever. No other being can prevent infinite suffering besides God himself, so why would you want to judge his methods? He himself did not shy away from suffering himself, but died on the cross, proving how much he loves you.

Here are some articles if you would like to know more:
Debunking the Epicurean Fallacy
Exploring the book of Job and why it is bad to judge God.
God's ways are above our ways
God is good, a rebuttal to modern atheists
Why does God allow suffering, part 1
Why does God allow suffering, part 2
The Affect Effect or Order Theory, how God understands the Butterfly Effect

I can tell you for a fact that God loves you :) God wants us all to live together in love and peace. We're to love people who even wrong us, and defeat evil by being good in all situations. There are a lot of people who spaz out at the mention of Christianity being good for society, but what is wrong with love and peace?

I don't see conflict with Christianity and Science. I think that is normally just the result of bad theology. The tapes should be out for everyone to analyze. I think there should be more discussions because bad theology makes some Christians misunderstand science, and worse it makes scientists think that God might not be the real and awesome dude that he is.

People also get bent out of shape that they can't use science to prove God exists. Why should you be able to create a scientific experiment that could repetitively force the hand of God? That simply doesn't make sense. If God always did the same thing in the same situation, how is God any different than one of the cosmic laws he's made? You cannot reduce God into god-in-the-box, and you shouldn't be able to. Scripture even says you will not find God through worldly wisdom, but only through preaching.

Many modern atheists have bad theology. They think: How does an all powerful and good God let bad things happen? God operates under ways we cannot understand. For instance: God's goal is not to make your life on Earth a luxurious experience. God's goal might be to maximize the people getting to Heaven. God can allow any amount of finite suffering to happen in order to prevent infinite suffering. God is the only being in reality that can bring people to Heaven where there is peace, love, joy, and no suffering forever. No other being can prevent infinite suffering besides God himself, so why would you want to judge his methods? He himself did not shy away from suffering himself, but died on the cross, proving how much he loves you.

Here are some articles if you would like to know more:
Debunking the Epicurean Fallacy
Exploring the book of Job and why it is bad to judge God.
God's ways are above our ways
God is good, a rebuttal to modern atheists
Why does God allow suffering, part 1
Why does God allow suffering, part 2
The Affect Effect or Order Theory, how God understands the Butterfly Effect

I have an article exploring the book of Job The book of Job teaches us why we should not judge God: Because we do not have the infinite knowledge he has.

Yet, God comes around, lives a life of suffering, restraint, goodness, and then ultimate dies a horrible death while being scored by many... Because he loves us. The result is we can get to Heaven and live forever in peace. If this doesn't make sense, read my article, Why Christianity Makes Sense Now if you agree finite suffering is less than infinite suffering, God could do anything basically anything he wants in order to let us avoid infinite suffering right? Many people with immature theology can't see this. Maybe this was part of his plan to confuse his spiritual enemies too. There are all sorts of things that might have been headfakes to accomplish the Gospel. Create all the stars in the sky, and even if we don't get there, his opponents need to strategize,"What if humans get to the stars?" Are the stars useless if we never get there then? I mean they give us something to spark our imagination of exploration. God can create infinite universes in Heaven, so if we wanted, we could own a Starship and explore our own personal universe, populated with more intrigue, action and life than Gene Roddenberry could come up with. I can guarantee Heaven will be better than anything you can even imagine. But who wants to listen to me, you know.

No, Jesus came to earth, not god.

It's quite a push to try to show god in good light. He put too extremely naive people on earth together with the most powerful angel at that time. He knew Lucifer would try to attack the humans, yet made no attempt to warn them about his presence. You can argue all you want, but god knew exactly what would happen as did anyone else who saw the whole picture. Sure you can blame the humans since they where told they should not eat from the tree, but the fact is that god knew what would happen, and just spun the events in a way that he could push the blame on humans.

And now, generations later we are still being punished for that spin... But we have the right to choose though right? After all the bad things god did to us we decide to be his friends, we will get to come and play with him in heaven. Unfortunately if we decide not to, he'll make us suffer forever in hell.

There are grown ups who behave like god did during the creation process and first week, and nobody would consider them to have very high moral. There are kids that go to school with my child who try to behave like god is doing now, and everybody understands they are bullies and should be left alone. However now that we are speaking of god we should understand he's just looking out for our best interests...

Yet, God comes around, lives a life of suffering, restraint, goodness, and then ultimate dies a horrible death while being scored by many... Because he loves us. The result is we can get to Heaven and live forever in peace. If this doesn't make sense, read my article, Why Christianity Makes Sense

Now if you agree finite suffering is less than infinite suffering, God could do anything basically anything he wants in order to let us avoid infinite suffering right? Many people with immature theology can't see this. Maybe this was part of his plan to confuse his spiritual enemies too. There are all sorts of things that might have been headfakes to accomplish the Gospel. Create all the stars in the sky, and even if we don't get there, his opponents need to strategize,"What if humans get to the stars?" Are the stars useless if we never get there then? I mean they give us something to spark our imagination of exploration. God can create infinite universes in Heaven, so if we wanted, we could own a Starship and explore our own personal universe, populated with more intrigue, action and life than Gene Roddenberry could come up with. I can guarantee Heaven will be better than anything you can even imagine. But who wants to listen to me, you know.

I would like to see this debate. It should not be censored. Even if dude lost the debate, that doesn't mean much except he should analyze his theology. Let us analyze the outcome and create better theories. I think we should have more public talks and awareness of this. People with bad theology are coming to bad conclusions that is bad for the souls of men.

So far, I haven't found a better theory than the "Long Day Theory" which lets evolution fit perfect with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Here is my old take on it. God himself actually approved of this article and my book. I prayed over the publishing of this book if what I said was theologically sound,"I pray everything is cool" and instantly my coauthor IMs me,"Everything is cool." That was the second time I know God interacted in my life in a way he wanted me to know. You can get a copy of my book for free or you can read my articles online for free.

My article is kinda long, just focus on Chapter 1: Real-Estate hoarding.
A Young Educated Poor's article

Hello,

You guys see me post frequently. I don't normally get to talk about God often, but you can see in my signature that is the core of my life. If I was to talk about God in posts that are not related, my speech would be as the scripture says,"Like a clanging gong." If you do not understand Jesus, he teaches,"Love everyone and forgive everyone anything they do to you."

There are a few things I want to address which I hope you find interesting.

First, Evolution and Creation can coexist if you have the proper theology. You can take my word on it, or read my article on it.

Next, God says not to put him to the test. Science likes to test and analyze things. Then the engineers come and make devices. God is not trying to "elude detection", but think about the implications of science and engineering. God does protect people's children that are prayed for. But let us say God never let babies get injured by any weapon known to man 100% of the time when they're prayed for. The scientist would quickly find out babies can't be injured in any way when prayer is used. Then the engineer would then fashion armor for tanks by strapping prayer imbued babies to the outside of it :P You see: It is simply better for God to not be tested, than for him to be scientifically determined what 'god in the box' would do. This also is a good explanation of why God doesn't do tons of showy miracles. If people could see when God acted, they'd try and force his hand.

Finally, Christianity is the religion of truth. Isn't truth what a scientist is ultimately seeking?

Thank you for reading. I don't often get to talk on Slashdot about the thing I care about most: Jesus Christ, Lord of all.

If you want to check out my webpage on AI from 2002, you can do so here . There is a lot of information there that isn't as concise as I have here. AI is easy to understand conceptually when you think of it as simply a computer program taking in input from the outside world, and interacting with it. The AI I'm talking about has little to no machine learning involved. It is all hard coded AI for robots to take commands and follow them. It really isn't as hard as everyone thinks. I think the trap people fall into is,"I don't know how the brain works, so we can't figure out AI." or "AI is one of those things you need to write a program that programs itself", but if you just approach the problem of,"How do I make a robot go pick up a ball I threw?" you can see that is something that is codable with certain other understandable technologies.

We don't know how to digitize a world and put it into a 3d world yet. But you can see this is a problem that will be solved someday.
We don't know how to program a computer with Natural Language(English). But this is a problem that will be solved someday(especially if you have a database of 3d objects available through digitizing).

Artificial Intelligence isn't really as impossible as people think it is. I'd reason that it could be done with a company/government with money in just 7 years of the technology of digitizing things to a 3rd world. But due to inefficiencies in government/for profit companies, it probably won't happen for 20. And I have no idea how far off digitizing things in a 3rd world is off from now to add onto that.

I could go straight to working on Artificial Intelligence myself, and probably research a digitizer myself(no guarantees I could write it), but Artificial Intelligence research doesn't pay the bills.

Exactly. I wrote a book with an article with this in it. The book was approved by God. I prayed to God over the book just before it was published. I wanted to know if my theory was okay or if I was overstepping my bounds in it, so I silently prayed,"God I hope everything is cool." Instantly through IM, my coauthor IMs me,"Everything is cool." Because God approves my book and this article is in it, I know "The Long Day Theory" is how things happened. This theory is so obvious that I came up with it on my own not even knowing others already did too.

Christianity and Evolution are very compatible. Christians should not challenge evolution, they should challenge their own theology. Just as God spoke to me one time to let me know he is real, he also let me know my first book was approved by him. In the book I wrote about God, I have an article entitled,"The Long Day Theory", Read it here

I explored what would be needed to make AI almost a decade ago, and what I concluded is that we need good vision detection. With good vision detection and the ability to turn a camera, or array of camera's vision into 3d models and identify the objects in the scene means AI is mostly done. If a robot understands its surroundings, you can program it how to interact with its surroundings. Coding in natural language understanding is easy if you have your nouns(objects) already in place. I didn't feel like coding the 3d object recognition stuff myself because all I'd end up with is something hacky or maybe a proof of concept and it'd have taken me 15-20 years without pay. So I decided just to wait for someone else to make that tech. Finally looks like DARPA is, and I have emailed them in the past that they should :) If you wanna read some about how to make AI yourself, I have an 8 year old page here

I still want to revisit making AI, but I want to do it later in my life when there is more software technology readily available to the public or when I have enough money to support myself. There is no money in pure research for this. So I am making video games right now. Then after video games, I'll be doing education. One of the uses of AI is to educate others, but you don't need AI to create software/books to distribute to kids. AI brought me to realize I can help in the field of education. But anyway, for me, it is video games for cash, then education to help, and finally AI to automate stuff.

My biggest fear with AI is that any wealthy man can just buy a networked army of robots, and one man will have unquestioning, unlimited morale army.

I just discovered a puzzle game I wrote in Flash last year, and I'm letting people know it's there in case they want to play. I originally wrote this in C/C++, but then ported to Flash in order to learn the Flash language. Turns out Flash is almost identical to C/C++ except Flash is actually easier to code in. If you were wondering if you ever wanted to pick up Flash to do webgames and you know C/C++, do it!

Play Diamond Drop

There is such a thing as "long day creationism". God may have created the universe over billions of years. The same Hebrew word "day" in Genesis is used in other parts of scripture to mean "ages" or "indefinite amount of time". There is no where in the Bible that says the world is only 6000 years old. That number is simply assumptions some random priest made hundreds of years ago, there's no reason why he must be correct, and I believe he is wrong. I have an article with more detail here.

The notion that God created the universe isn't some tool to prove that God exists. The notion that God created the universe is something you need to take with faith. If you have no faith in God, you don't have faith he created the universe. If I wanted to build someone's faith, I'd start with showing that God is good and loving then go forward from there. Just because the beginning of the Bible starts with God creating the universe doesn't mean its the part designed to build your faith the most.

I know God is real. Jesus is LORD. I know for an absolute fact. www.goodnewsjim.com

Hebrews 11:3 "It is by faith that we understand that the universe was created by God's word, so that what can be seen was made out of what cannot be seen. "

Real World to 3d models is a core component on AI. The AI needs to see its world before it can make decisions inside it. Imagine quake, you can make a bot to play inside it because you have all the data in the game. Now if you wanted to make a "Fetch me a beer bot", the thing would have to know what your house looked like to navigate the instruction path.

Obviously you'll need to write software that also "identifies" the 3d objects you're looking at, and that will take some work, but isn't impossible using pattern recognition.

I have a small page on how I think AI will come about

Creationism does not in anyway detract from evolution. Some people on both sides think creationism and evolution can not exist together, but they can with the long day theory.

As for interpreting the constitution, I agree that it should stay in its current form unless it gets ammended. I think the focal point is that Christian enemies are arguing for,"Seperation of Church and State" while Christians argue that the Constitution says this nowhere in it. The only thing the Constitution says is the first ammendment where it says,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech," Yet, there this is interpreted that clergy may not talk about a political candidate from the puplit. To me, this is a law abdridging freedom of speech.

The problem with promoting creationism isn't just Constitutional. Creationism effectively ends discussion where as Darwinism promotes discussion. Creationism's response to every issue is effectively God made it that way. Darwinism can be refined as a theory creationism simply makes the argument that God did it. This is an issue of Texas evangelicals using the government to promote their specific ideas and try to create a new generation of kids that follow their beliefs. They already have tax free churches for that but they want more power and control than the Constitution allows.

Creationism does not in anyway detract from evolution. Some people on both sides think creationism and evolution can not exist together, but they can with the long day theory.

As for interpreting the constitution, I agree that it should stay in its current form unless it gets ammended. I think the focal point is that Christian enemies are arguing for,"Seperation of Church and State" while Christians argue that the Constitution says this nowhere in it. The only thing the Constitution says is the first ammendment where it says,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech," Yet, there this is interpreted that clergy may not talk about a political candidate from the puplit. To me, this is a law abdridging freedom of speech.

In the early 90s, I wrote an RPG called,"Intergalactic Bounty Hunter." I took what I learned from other RPGS and made better combat mechanics(actually worse in some ways after play testing). The setting was space after Earth was destroyed and warp drive was invented and cheap so lots of vehicles could travel in space. The idea is that there were only a few out posts where people lived and worked, but there was all of space to hide in. So criminals found it similar to the old west where they could rob and then flee to space. This is why there were bounty hunters.

One time, my friend got a mutant power(blatant ripoff of Xmen), and he was able to charge things with kinetic energy(not like Gambit). So he found two mice and shot them at a guy with great velocity. He asked me if they lived. I said ,"No". He said,"You didn't roll. You roll for everything" So I privately rolled four 1d20, and if a 1 comes up, that is a rare success. I rolled all four 1s. So I had a strange look on my face and told him,"Ok, you don't know if they survived or not."

The battle raged and then he went looking for the mice, but he couldn't find them because they were up in a melted plasma cannon turret, so the party continued onward. And me, being the devious GM that I am, figured the mice to mutate to be super smart with the mutant power even though they became parapalegic. They used parts from the plasma turret to rebuild their limbs and then they built machinery to enable transportation and survival. This was before Pinky and the Brain. They were two parapalegic mice trying to defeat the Quadlek(furry 4 armed mutant-Player Character) that made them this way.

Once they tracked down the Quadlek that made them this way and was about to kill him, he said,"Hey I may have crippled you, but I made you super smart too." And with that they decided not to kill him, but instead to conquer the universe. So they became yet another recurring character in the RPG. I also thought,"If only I knew someone to make a cartoon involving 2 mice trying to take over the world that it'd make excellent episodic content." and 1 year later Pinky and the Brain came out.

I'm really good at coming up with successful ideas that other people eventually implement! Its cool that I have a few ideas on my plate now. #1 is Voteandnews.com - Hyperdemocracy realized. #2 Is a governmental redesign of education that uses the Internet for resources #3 An ebay competitor that also allows people to list things permanently for sale #4 is roamingdragon.com #5 is an adaptation of Intergalactic Bounty Hunter that allows PNP to be adapted to game master driven CRPG

My old ideas are found here