In terms of goals there will be difference. So far what we observe is that living creatures are driven by instincts and hormones, the learned behavior is on top of that, but a healthy young individual can't get away from wanting sex (obviously, the first thing we think about while looking into the sky is of all that alien tail we need to find and try out.)
I am not so sure that machines would be limited by these factors, machines should be able to replicate without sex, that would be the very minimum difference between living organisms (at least those replicating sexually) and robots, because what's the point of building robots that need to spend energy trying to find another robot to replicate? Evolution of robots? Why bother with sex for evolution though? Evolution is about making things that adopt to environments and survive through the following generations, but then again, why would a robot need to 'die', if it could simply replace parts, add memory, etc. So in case of a robot 'evolution' could come in form of a new design for its components, design works much faster than evolution after all.
Everyone thinks a sentient machine will be built, and I'll agree that sentience can be easily faked; I've written fake AI that seems real. There is no artificial sentience on earth, why is it supposed that machines can be made sentient?
- you know, if a machine fakes whatever you call 'sentience' so well, that a human can't determine whether he is talking to a machine or not (so the machine passes the Turing test), then how can you argue that it is not sentient, again whatever connotation you are attaching to that word.
"the number of apprehensions made by the Border Patrol declined for the third year in a row to 724,000 in 2008 after reaching a mid-decade peak of 1,189,000 in 2005."
Now, I don't see any journalist, any border cop contesting these specifics, if they did, I would have picked up that information.
Look, running a war just for taking Oil is not that great of a plan in terms of economics, because it costs more to run the war than all that oil.
The reason for the wars is to have them, so that military can spend money and after they are done (look at Iraq) an even bigger army of civilian contractors take their place and make even more money supposedly for 'rebuilding' the country.
It wouldn't work well if US stopped pretending, they would never be able to get those civilian contracts.
There IS a conventional bomb suitable for fighting urban warfare. The FOAB ensures Russia has a much nicer option than fighting in cities, which didn't work out so well. The best way to fight in urban areas is to destroy them and kill everyone in them, which until recently required inconvenient and embarrassing nukes.
- Father Of All Bombs, sounds OK, but have you seen my Mother In Law? I am not so sure it qualifies as conventional though.
Looks like not everybody cares, even US doesn't care much anymore, of-course as long as US itself is not affected. It needs to be affected by its actions, otherwise it will not learn and will continue aggression. I bet that if a country is faced with the possibility of being attacked by the US and has no conventional ways of fighting it, going nuclear will not seem as such a ridiculous idea to them, they are going to die anyway.
Millions dead in Iraq and Afghanistan after the US invasion, so tell me, what difference would it have made to those people how they died, by conventional or nuclear weapons? The only difference to them would have been psychological, they would die knowing that the enemy is dying as well.
I am not advocating that people should do it, I am saying that it is very possible to happen that way, because if I came up with it, so will many other people.
This is a statistical fact, the number of interceptions is related to the number of all attempted crossings.
By the virtue of illegal immigration being illegal, you are not catching everyone who is trying to cross the borders. You are catching a percentage of those people and averaging the percentages over periods of time shows a decline in attempted crossings, to the numbers equivalent to those in the sixties, which are again, the lowest numbers in 50 years now.
Do you realize that Mexicans are crossing borders today at the levels that are lower than anything within the past 50 years? They are crossing borders in numbers equivalent to what US has seen in the sixties.
As to whether they are 'interested in saving' anything, well, they are providing cheap labor force, which US will need sooner than later.
The idea here being simply kill anyone who has the ability to set off the remaining bombs
you are assuming for some reason that the people who will be setting off the devices will NOT be on the continental US?
I assume that the people who will set off the charges will be in fact doing it directly at the bomb site, I mean there is no problem getting a few people detonating each bomb directly by hand, sure they'll die, but that's the best way to blow the bombs up, not by remote but by hand and one thing is certain, there is NO shortage of people wanting to do this.
So I don't know who you are replying, but certainly not to my post, you are replying to some ideas in your head. As to the size of the bombs, even a megaton range device is no bigger than a large fridge. No big deal smuggling these across the border and positioning them even in large numbers in strategic places at all.
So the National Guard killing students for protesting against Nixon sending troops to Cambodia is propaganda?
Sure, the actual cops were sent by Governor Rhodes, I don't expect presidents to make calls to cops.
However the demonstrations started against Nixon's invasion of Cambodia and later the courts found nobody guilty of the murder, all this while Nixon was giving speeches about 'bums' causing trouble.
So this was done with knowledge and approval from the top level down, US government terrorizing and killing US citizens.
Obviously Mexico should have invaded and saved the country.
hhmmm, I am certain that US has an extremely low tolerance for its non-military casualties, pretty much lower than any other country in the world (aside from Canada).
The point is that a war has to come to US to make US care about wars they start. The rest of the world has seen many more wars on their own soil than the US and US is the main aggressor in the world today, clearly there is a correlation. US citizens must be made aware, they must suffer from wars they allow their government to start, that's the only way to make them stop.
Oh boy, what are we going to do with you? Clearly the dear old leader would be sending even more twats than 5000 a day, because he is the best leader and all people love him.
To answer your question: yes, he would not be sending those twats all by himself, there would be the necessary resources allocated for that work.
Let me put it to you this way, USA didn't make any friends by bombing the former Yugoslavia, if anything, it has only succeeded in making more enemies, especially in the former Soviet block.
You are a silly person, who is completely unaware of the history of the world, blissfully ignorant of such realities as geopolitics, relations between nations etc.
If US attacked Iran by nuking during the cold war, that would have been the end of it for Iran. For USA. For USSR and some other unrelated entities.
Can you tell me this: did Iran invade USA to 'free' US people after the US police shot students? Should some country have invaded USA to free its people from its brutal government?
It's all good and great, but it's not going to do much damage to the US forces. The REAL way to fight the US is from inside the US.
What you do is you buy a few nukes and disperse them in the most important cities and then blow half of them and promise to blow the other half if the US doesn't stop with its invasion.
That's the only true way to actually STOP an attack by US, nothing else will stop them, they can only be stopped from inside US itself.
The problem with US is that it is too far from the Middle East and it is separated by the ocean, and this allows the USA to attack anybody on the other continents without any real retaliation against their people.
Think why you said "Except Russia and China", that's because Russia and China can kill a lot of US non-military citizens by dropping nukes on them. That's the only way to stop the US is by scaring the non-military population. Everything else is just going to end up in a long protracted conflict on the territory of US choosing.
If anything, US and Europe is showing the signs of the once OK governments becoming unbearable. Sure, revolutions change government and rarely set up ones that are better, the reason is that revolutionaries themselves make for terrible peace time governments, the revolutionaries should take down one government and replace it with a new one that is NOT part of the revolutionaries. Of-course this is a rarity.
However, all the governments that exist today are all going to be replace probably within the next 50 years.
Slashdot Mirror
In terms of goals there will be difference. So far what we observe is that living creatures are driven by instincts and hormones, the learned behavior is on top of that, but a healthy young individual can't get away from wanting sex (obviously, the first thing we think about while looking into the sky is of all that alien tail we need to find and try out.)
I am not so sure that machines would be limited by these factors, machines should be able to replicate without sex, that would be the very minimum difference between living organisms (at least those replicating sexually) and robots, because what's the point of building robots that need to spend energy trying to find another robot to replicate? Evolution of robots? Why bother with sex for evolution though? Evolution is about making things that adopt to environments and survive through the following generations, but then again, why would a robot need to 'die', if it could simply replace parts, add memory, etc. So in case of a robot 'evolution' could come in form of a new design for its components, design works much faster than evolution after all.
So yes, there would be differences.
Everyone thinks a sentient machine will be built, and I'll agree that sentience can be easily faked; I've written fake AI that seems real. There is no artificial sentience on earth, why is it supposed that machines can be made sentient?
- you know, if a machine fakes whatever you call 'sentience' so well, that a human can't determine whether he is talking to a machine or not (so the machine passes the Turing test), then how can you argue that it is not sentient, again whatever connotation you are attaching to that word.
Are you a reliable source, drinkypoo?
apprehensions 2005-2008
"the number of apprehensions made by the Border Patrol declined for the third year in a row to 724,000 in 2008 after reaching a mid-decade peak of 1,189,000 in 2005."
Now, I don't see any journalist, any border cop contesting these specifics, if they did, I would have picked up that information.
You, drinkypoo, are not a reliable source though.
I don't have a dog in this fight but I also don't care.
Look, running a war just for taking Oil is not that great of a plan in terms of economics, because it costs more to run the war than all that oil.
The reason for the wars is to have them, so that military can spend money and after they are done (look at Iraq) an even bigger army of civilian contractors take their place and make even more money supposedly for 'rebuilding' the country.
It wouldn't work well if US stopped pretending, they would never be able to get those civilian contracts.
There IS a conventional bomb suitable for fighting urban warfare. The FOAB ensures Russia has a much nicer option than fighting in cities, which didn't work out so well. The best way to fight in urban areas is to destroy them and kill everyone in them, which until recently required inconvenient and embarrassing nukes.
- Father Of All Bombs, sounds OK, but have you seen my Mother In Law? I am not so sure it qualifies as conventional though.
1) Something to counter their AWACS
- SU 47.
2) Something to pick up their planes. 4) Long range, highly effective missiles.
- S300, S400
3) Good night fighting ability.
- TOR M1 and even Tunguska M
Looks like not everybody cares, even US doesn't care much anymore, of-course as long as US itself is not affected. It needs to be affected by its actions, otherwise it will not learn and will continue aggression. I bet that if a country is faced with the possibility of being attacked by the US and has no conventional ways of fighting it, going nuclear will not seem as such a ridiculous idea to them, they are going to die anyway.
Millions dead in Iraq and Afghanistan after the US invasion, so tell me, what difference would it have made to those people how they died, by conventional or nuclear weapons? The only difference to them would have been psychological, they would die knowing that the enemy is dying as well.
I am not advocating that people should do it, I am saying that it is very possible to happen that way, because if I came up with it, so will many other people.
y it's a good show, because you bought it.
- says random drinkypoo on the intrewebs.
Statistics come from local cops who actually catch people when they find them, nothing new about it.
This is a statistical fact, the number of interceptions is related to the number of all attempted crossings.
By the virtue of illegal immigration being illegal, you are not catching everyone who is trying to cross the borders. You are catching a percentage of those people and averaging the percentages over periods of time shows a decline in attempted crossings, to the numbers equivalent to those in the sixties, which are again, the lowest numbers in 50 years now.
Census is not how you get this information, it's about interceptions of illegals at the borders.
The numbers that are caught crossing the borders are the same as in the sixties, which is lower than anything between sixties and now.
Do you realize that Mexicans are crossing borders today at the levels that are lower than anything within the past 50 years? They are crossing borders in numbers equivalent to what US has seen in the sixties.
As to whether they are 'interested in saving' anything, well, they are providing cheap labor force, which US will need sooner than later.
I don't understand this part of your monologue:
The idea here being simply kill anyone who has the ability to set off the remaining bombs
you are assuming for some reason that the people who will be setting off the devices will NOT be on the continental US?
I assume that the people who will set off the charges will be in fact doing it directly at the bomb site, I mean there is no problem getting a few people detonating each bomb directly by hand, sure they'll die, but that's the best way to blow the bombs up, not by remote but by hand and one thing is certain, there is NO shortage of people wanting to do this.
So I don't know who you are replying, but certainly not to my post, you are replying to some ideas in your head. As to the size of the bombs, even a megaton range device is no bigger than a large fridge. No big deal smuggling these across the border and positioning them even in large numbers in strategic places at all.
So the National Guard killing students for protesting against Nixon sending troops to Cambodia is propaganda?
Sure, the actual cops were sent by Governor Rhodes, I don't expect presidents to make calls to cops.
However the demonstrations started against Nixon's invasion of Cambodia and later the courts found nobody guilty of the murder, all this while Nixon was giving speeches about 'bums' causing trouble.
So this was done with knowledge and approval from the top level down, US government terrorizing and killing US citizens.
Obviously Mexico should have invaded and saved the country.
become his friend.
It is insightful because it is an excellent example of US government turning against its people, it was done on command of the President, no less.
hhmmm, I am certain that US has an extremely low tolerance for its non-military casualties, pretty much lower than any other country in the world (aside from Canada).
The point is that a war has to come to US to make US care about wars they start. The rest of the world has seen many more wars on their own soil than the US and US is the main aggressor in the world today, clearly there is a correlation. US citizens must be made aware, they must suffer from wars they allow their government to start, that's the only way to make them stop.
looks more like Tu-143 or Tu-141
Oh boy, what are we going to do with you? Clearly the dear old leader would be sending even more twats than 5000 a day, because he is the best leader and all people love him.
To answer your question: yes, he would not be sending those twats all by himself, there would be the necessary resources allocated for that work.
Let me put it to you this way, USA didn't make any friends by bombing the former Yugoslavia, if anything, it has only succeeded in making more enemies, especially in the former Soviet block.
You are a silly person, who is completely unaware of the history of the world, blissfully ignorant of such realities as geopolitics, relations between nations etc.
If US attacked Iran by nuking during the cold war, that would have been the end of it for Iran. For USA. For USSR and some other unrelated entities.
Can you tell me this: did Iran invade USA to 'free' US people after the US police shot students? Should some country have invaded USA to free its people from its brutal government?
It's all good and great, but it's not going to do much damage to the US forces. The REAL way to fight the US is from inside the US.
What you do is you buy a few nukes and disperse them in the most important cities and then blow half of them and promise to blow the other half if the US doesn't stop with its invasion.
That's the only true way to actually STOP an attack by US, nothing else will stop them, they can only be stopped from inside US itself.
The problem with US is that it is too far from the Middle East and it is separated by the ocean, and this allows the USA to attack anybody on the other continents without any real retaliation against their people.
Think why you said "Except Russia and China", that's because Russia and China can kill a lot of US non-military citizens by dropping nukes on them. That's the only way to stop the US is by scaring the non-military population. Everything else is just going to end up in a long protracted conflict on the territory of US choosing.
If anything, US and Europe is showing the signs of the once OK governments becoming unbearable. Sure, revolutions change government and rarely set up ones that are better, the reason is that revolutionaries themselves make for terrible peace time governments, the revolutionaries should take down one government and replace it with a new one that is NOT part of the revolutionaries. Of-course this is a rarity.
However, all the governments that exist today are all going to be replace probably within the next 50 years.
You think Jefferson would be electable in the USA today? I think not.