Don't forget that our computer runs on less than 100 watts (2000 Calorie diet is less than 100 watts and we're running two cameras, mics, other sensory organs, and a bunch of gyros).
Won't happen. Wheels give you more control than joysticks. There's a reason they sell all those wheel toys for racing games (hint: it's because it's easier to play with those, not because it looks cool).
A license tests your ability to control your speed and drive in a straight line. It doesn't test reaction time, situational awareness, common sense, general car control skills, resistance to road rage, or any of the other features people might find lacking in their peers (but never themselves strangely).
In racing games it's usually considered far preferable to use a wheel over a joystick because honestly you really don't need to go from straight to 40 degrees that quickly. Ever. The car has traction limits.
I doubt that either any nuclear powers will go to war for fear of getting nuked. If a war were to break out and one side started losing, that might cause a nuclear escalation as well.
And yes, I understand our percentage of GDP is lower than many countries. But if we can buy 3 tanks with 1% of our GDP and a 3rd world shit hole can buy 1 tank with 80% of their GDP, I don't think we need to match their GDP spending. We have more guns already (even though by that measure we spent less). Number of jet fighters and tanks is actually the measure I would like to look at (I unfortunately don't have these numbers). I think we really should aim to be close to tied with other world super powers (possibly 5% less to discourage arms races).
Honestly, I don't know what the budget breakdown is for the military. If it's for parts and maintenance and personal, cut your numbers of boats, tanks, and planes? Now you have less to maintain.
My compulsion to answer a question is so strong that I currently use "Well, that's not the question you really meant" as a proxy for "Yes" (If I don't say the first part, I'd just answer the question 'incorrectly')
I mean when I understand the information they are seeking is not the answer to the question. I can't think of any good examples at the moment, but it happens a few times a month to me.
When this happens I almost always understand what they want, it's just that I am so compelled to answer their first question that I only avoid doing so by notifying them of the problem. I recently got so I could answer the correct question after that (first I just answered, then I just told them I didn't like the question, now I tell them I don't like the question and give them the information they want, I might one day get to the level where I just answer what they meant to ask).
Yeah, I've gotten to the level know when someone asks me the 'wrong' question I now answer "You're not asking me the right question". I used to answer it.
I usually tell them what the right question is and then the answer for it.
I've come a long way from just answering the wrong question and leaving it sit.
Perhaps the sum of solution spaces where the machine is never turned on is greater than the sum of the solution spaces where it gets turned on but doesn't find what it's looking for?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget that our computer runs on less than 100 watts (2000 Calorie diet is less than 100 watts and we're running two cameras, mics, other sensory organs, and a bunch of gyros).
I concede your point as valid.
Won't happen. Wheels give you more control than joysticks. There's a reason they sell all those wheel toys for racing games (hint: it's because it's easier to play with those, not because it looks cool).
Play a modern racing game and the conclusion doesn't even take real world examples to reach.
A license tests your ability to control your speed and drive in a straight line. It doesn't test reaction time, situational awareness, common sense, general car control skills, resistance to road rage, or any of the other features people might find lacking in their peers (but never themselves strangely).
Apparently you haven't played many racing games...
Wheels make the games easier, not harder. Playing GT4 on high challenge levels in fast cars with a joystick is really pretty damn hard.
In racing games it's usually considered far preferable to use a wheel over a joystick because honestly you really don't need to go from straight to 40 degrees that quickly. Ever. The car has traction limits.
Control > Twitch.
There we go:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_tan_percap-military-tanks-per-capita
We've got 54 tanks per million people, China has 8. Our pop / China's pop = 0.23
0.23 * 54 = 12.
So we have 50% more tanks than China. I bet our tanks are better.
I doubt that either any nuclear powers will go to war for fear of getting nuked. If a war were to break out and one side started losing, that might cause a nuclear escalation as well.
And yes, I understand our percentage of GDP is lower than many countries. But if we can buy 3 tanks with 1% of our GDP and a 3rd world shit hole can buy 1 tank with 80% of their GDP, I don't think we need to match their GDP spending. We have more guns already (even though by that measure we spent less). Number of jet fighters and tanks is actually the measure I would like to look at (I unfortunately don't have these numbers). I think we really should aim to be close to tied with other world super powers (possibly 5% less to discourage arms races).
Honestly, I don't know what the budget breakdown is for the military. If it's for parts and maintenance and personal, cut your numbers of boats, tanks, and planes? Now you have less to maintain.
It's a work in progress.
My compulsion to answer a question is so strong that I currently use "Well, that's not the question you really meant" as a proxy for "Yes" (If I don't say the first part, I'd just answer the question 'incorrectly')
I do hope to continue improving.
It would be interesting to see if changing the format of the input or output with random neuron mixes would cause different behaviors.
If you don't use the breaks, it's not a racing game.
I think so. Your mileage may vary.
http://images.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=hilary%20hahn&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi
Interesting thoughts.
I'm pro that too.
Interesting information. I will need to reevaluate.
I think my position might become: China can already nuke us so let's spend twice the budget of the largest country without nukes.
mikael_j was interpreting what I said correctly.
I mean when I understand the information they are seeking is not the answer to the question. I can't think of any good examples at the moment, but it happens a few times a month to me.
When this happens I almost always understand what they want, it's just that I am so compelled to answer their first question that I only avoid doing so by notifying them of the problem. I recently got so I could answer the correct question after that (first I just answered, then I just told them I didn't like the question, now I tell them I don't like the question and give them the information they want, I might one day get to the level where I just answer what they meant to ask).
Unlikely. You probably already know the answer and my linguistic hash tables produce a lot of misses... :-(
AHAHA...
Yeah, I've gotten to the level know when someone asks me the 'wrong' question I now answer "You're not asking me the right question". I used to answer it.
I usually tell them what the right question is and then the answer for it.
I've come a long way from just answering the wrong question and leaving it sit.
I say cut our military spending until it's twice what China's is. That will save us around half a trillion per year.
Like, seriously?
Because they own a lot of land and have a trust fund manager who keeps them from losing it all?
To get more power to run the holodeck?
When you can get a neural implant that makes you a virtuoso violin player, will anyone care who Hillary Hahn is?
Perhaps the sum of solution spaces where the machine is never turned on is greater than the sum of the solution spaces where it gets turned on but doesn't find what it's looking for?