if someone programmed the rules for Go into it, then it has not learned to play through intelligence.
You need to better differentiation what you mean by "Shown instructions" and "programmed the rules".
The same 'seed' should also similarly be able to learn to play chess, do s crossword, or identify animals.
You have no idea what a "seed" is do you? It's just some nebulous term you've got rumbling around in your head that's pseudo-magical.
Anyway, the closest thing would be their method of machine learning. Which, for the link above which talks about DeepMind Alpha, it uses neural network and reinforcement learning. YEEEEESSSSSSS it self-taught go, chess and shogi. "The seed" is what DeepMind Alpha is. It's the tool that can learn things. That's the intelligence part. THE SAME TECHNIQUE is also used for object recognition. Hell, I dunno, maybe they could get deepMind to recognize pictures of cats.
Intelligence implies a certain amount of general purpose ability,
No, but general intelligence would be a lot cooler than specific, niche, narrow intelligence.
This is why a human savant that can't talk or understand anything about life but playing Go or Chess is not called 'intelligent'.
Wow, fuck you too dude. Most geeks are just some fraction of autistic savant. I know I'm better at math than English. If you're going to define my intelligence by my weakest link, then I'm going to call you an idiot for your ignorance on the current state of AI.
current AI technology which hasn't changed in decades
Uh huh.
Recall that there was a recent AI project to find the meaning of the Internet
No, but it sounds interesting. Got a link?
And there in lies one of the biggest problems with our current AI, it's only able to do things that we ask it
Yes, but I wouldn't say that a problem.
and they need a clear solution.
No, they're quite capable of working towards a partial solution. Hill-climbing is a thing they do. They also work with unknowns and play a pretty damn good game of poker. They can make guesses and work with unknown goals. Blind search. They DO need some sort of fitness function or heuristic though. Same as people.
You can't exactly ask an AI, "do you think this person lived a happy life?"
If you feed them enough information about a person then YES, they can most certainly spot the trends and identify people suffering with depression.
I don't think you're a psychologist and perhaps you meant to use a more vague or mystical term like "full-filling", "meaningful", or "worthwhile". And when did hedonism become a socially acceptable philosophy?
I don't want 'good enough' AI driving 80,000 lb. trucks at 80 mph.
A total of 3,986 people died in large truck crashes in 2016.
Someone who doesn't understand what the term "Good enough" means isn't good enough to talk about AI.
Let's see some actual fucking self-driving cars in real-world scenarios for a few years,
In 2015, the US states of Nevada, Florida, California, Virginia, and Michigan, together with Washington, D.C. allowed the testing of autonomous cars on public roads.[30]
In 2017, Audi stated that its latest A8 would be autonomous at up to speeds of 60 km/h using its "Audi AI". The driver would not have to do safety checks such as frequently gripping the steering wheel. The Audi A8 was claimed to be the first production car to reach level 3 autonomous driving and Audi would be the first manufacturer to use laser scanners in addition to cameras and ultrasonic sensors for their system.[31]
In November 2017, Waymo announced that it had begun testing driverless cars without a safety driver at the driver position
let some high-volume stores try out 'robots' moving merchandise and ringing up customers,
. . . Oh, ok. You're a troll. Because self-checkout has been a thing and there are a lot fewer cashiers now.
We have code which solves [problems] similar to a neural network
Liiiiike, that network of neurons that's current inside your skull? Yes, many AIs work in a similar fashion.
and we have code which can mutate within very strict limits with genetic algorithms.
Yeah, GA is pretty cool. But those "strict limits" are similar to the limits on evolution. The same sort of limits that somehow turned single-celled bacteria (or self-replicating RNA before that) into plants, fish, trees, tigers, viruses, humans. (Not platypus's though, that's just too messed up.) The limits of GA are what the genes describe. If you use N-S-E-W as the genetic building blocks you can solve mazes... as long as they don't have to go northeast. If you use the 26 letters of the alphabet, you can form words and sentences, and theoretically stuff like shakespear. Just without any punctuation. If you use assembly instructions as the base of your GA, then it's limited by whatever a computer can do. I mean, while I like them, they're not the hottest thing right now, because they do have their drawbacks.
In addition to NN and GA, there's also search optimization, fuzzy logic, hidden Markov models, inductive logic,.... There's a lot out there.
We have nothing even approaching "artificial intelligence," which at the very minimum of the bar would be the level of an "intelligent" Human.
Stop trying to redefine terms. That's a ludicrously high bar. What kind of egocentric worldview is this? Do cats have zero intelligence? You're one step away from phrenology and declaring the Irish as sub-human. If you put intelligence on some sort of pedestal, then you hinder your ability to understand it.
Yes, just like yours. And just like you, they can add to their knowledge.
Hardly any of it is considered really deep self learning other then some programmed learning abilities.
Yes, those parts are what we call AI.
But then again, people get excited about Space X launching a rocket that was done back in the 60's and 70's? Will AI hit a brick wall as well?
The DC-X was flown in the 90's. It ran out of funding after it's last launch caused damage. And just like the gap with VTVL, AI research had a couple of winters and the hype train is once again going strong.
But the cycle of hype and the resulting disillusionment doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The field has progressed and the capabilities of AI have expanded.
the ultimate psychopath: Intelligence without any kind of conscience.
Nobody calls a hammer a psychopath, it's just a tool. But you're exactly right, it'll be like corporations. Most of which are given the marching orders "Whatever make money". And just like corporations are heartless soulless and occasionally do horrible things, we'll have the same experience with AIs. But it all comes down to who is using them. Even a souless corporate overlord will call a halt when it's AI chatbot starts spouting racist rhetoric. A corporations asking a panel of analysts how best to minimize recall costs isn't different then asking an AI.
intelligence. I.e. the ability to use prior experience in totally new situations, evaluate those situations and draw conclusions that can be applied to react properly to it. And I mean totally new.
No true scotsman and you redefined a word to pidgeon-hole the debate.
Care to describe a totally new scenario that you've encountered where you had to employ your intelligence? Because I'm going to bet that you've used your past experience with similar problems to tackle new situations. JUUUUUUUUUUST like how AI can apply past learning sets on similar problems. Just... more narrowly. They're working on a broader, more general intelligence whose learning sets include more and there will be incremental improvements over time.
it's not possible (yet, maybe forever) to create an AI that can make such abstractions and apply old knowledge to new situations.
Sweet. So assuming that they continue this avenue and create a host of commands they can transmit to everyone's home secretary via shows and songs, what sort of tools are going to be available for me to send out while I'm visiting that abnoxious friend with one of these things?
I mean, of course I can have my smartphone play this "ALEXA OFF" command on repeat and that'll save me from having to watch him, yet again, try and show off his latest toy. But there's bound to be other commands, right?
It's a collection of scripts that do automated tasks for people that are too stupid to write bash scripts to do it for themselves. It's "value add" aspect is that it handles log-ins for various accounts. So if you want to do a daily search of slashdot for any mention of Elon and mail you a summary.
The downside is that it's not only closed source, it's doing the mystic startup "We're too hip to tell you just wtf is going on" sort of way. I'm not real sure why companies do this. I think they think if investors realize this is nothing new and anyone can do it then they wouldn't invest. But not only do they hide what they do and how they do it, the only way they tell you a damn thing is if you sign up and register. It's a shifty startup making a walled garden of scripts that has all your account passwords.
But it's probably helpful for some people. Bash does kinda suck and handling keys is hard.
It's not nature, it's the nature of the parents.... which nurture the child.
Let's say.... your parents have a cancer gene. Which thankfully you don't get. YAY!
BUT LO AND BEHOLD, that has an impact on the family which affects your upbringing. Tragedy sucks.
"genetic nurture", pft. That reeks of them trying to make up a fancy term for something that's dead simple and not surprising at all. I dunno, did I miss something in the article?
I'm a pretty liberal guy and the obvious refutation is that secrets are fundamentally different than violence. A kid with secrets isn't going to hurt anyone while a kid with a handful of violence can hurt himself and others. But that's just kinda knee-jerk partisian politics talking. I myself believe in the 2nd amendment for the whole "overthrowing tyranny" aspect. And to that effect, I've argued that hard, strong, REAL encryption should be protected under the 2nd amendment.
Could you build a plant, and operate it here following the same environmental and safety regulations used in China?
The answer is obviously no. Why? Because those working conditions and environmental practices would be condemned as immoral and an affront to the environment.
So, why then do people seem to think it suddenly becomes moral and OK to have those conditions in a place 3,000 miles away? If it's Not OK here, then it's not OK there.
Because a lot of people's moral compass hinges on the question "does it affect me?" If it doesn't, then it's not amoral. And that's a sliding scale. The less it affects them, the less heinous the crime. You can comment on what OUGHT to drive people's moral compass..... but you're just whining or preaching or bible thumping.
Sorry for the sad dose of realism, but while a lot of people believe in the labor and environmental movements, the amount they care diminishes with distance. The rich dick republicans who fight labor rights don't have family getting screwed by the bosses and chewed up by machinery. The anti-EPA libertarians don't breath smog daily.
seems to actually be racists.
Too far dude. It's not really racism, it's just "somebody-else"...ism. And until we're all yogi-floating everywhere in a zen state of empty-self and pure altruism... that shit ain't going anywhere. Seriously, stop making up shit about the opposition. Calling them racists is just too far, you damn dirty anti-vaxxer.
I mean, you're both right. No it's not a subsidy. Yes, the extra cost of solar panels (for those people who still buy from china) will go to the federal government. Yes, it means more people will buy American. Yes, they'll be paying more. Yes, it's corporate welfare. Yes it discourages switching to solar. Yes, it promotes US solar panel production.
They didn't really earn it... other than by "being American" and adhering to OSHA and EPA regulation....and pay US taxes? (Ha, that's silly US corporations don't pay taxes!). As for ethanol, heeey, it did it's job. We manage to make an alternative to oil. Woooo! But it turns out during the big squeeze leading up to (or causing) the financial crash, everyone invested into all sorts of alternatives and fracking gave us cheap gas again. While we suck out the last drops out of dry wells. So ethanol isn't really needed. At the moment.
All this said, I don't think 4 years is really enough time for any US manufacturer to wade into the market. So it's really just a sweetheart kiss to the existing manufacturers. Or life support. I dunno the state of the industry. But in general tariffs and barriers to free trade is just slitting your own throat.
Grants. We call those grants. If it was sold to the US people as a "loan program" when it didn't expect to get the money back, that.... could be fraud. The government trying to get into the "venture capitalist" business where they give out tax money to risky ventures would be so ripe for corruption it's an obviously bad idea. You can't trust people to make bets with other people's money.
I saw this writing on the wall WAAAAY back in 2004. I thought to myself "Man, web-dev tech is in constant turmoil. I've got on option about which tech I'm going to learn. Do I learn something that will be useless in 4 years or do I learn something that will be around forever." And long story short, I'm an embedded SW engineer working on Satellites in the one true language that's absolutely perfect for every application ever.... C.
I DO oppose NAZIs! WTF is wrong with you leaping to conclusions!? Holy SHIT I support freedom of speech so I must be a NAZI? That's nuts.
Damore pointed out one reason for the gender gap that you took offence to, and he then proposed how deal with it to fix it the gap. Apparently you're against that too since you're opposed to everything. You have likewise obstinately insisted that he's sexist.
If you're unwilling to tolerate anyone with ideas that don't line up with yours, and will oppose anything put forth by them by default simply because you disagree with a single (factually true) statement... I've got some bad news for you. Per the definition, you're a bigot.
Ha, I can't believe you threw out this:
you're the one trying to bend sweet lady logic into a pretzel
Immediately followed by this curve ball:
Tolerance is opposition to discrimination based on immutable traits, not just putting up with things, so "tolerating" intolerance would be self-defeating and pointless.
Siiiigh, but you probably don't even see the hypocrisy. But no kiddo, if you're only willing to tolerate people who agree with you, then you're a bigot. If you try to silence, shame, or get them fired, then you're also pretty fascist. Not a full-on fascist until you support brown-shirts exacting physical violence and intimidation, but you're on your way. You're quick to demonize anyone that speaks out against you.
I at least can admit I'm a little bigoted. I just can't stand wilful ignorance. You're insistent that Damore is sexist. When confronted with the fact that the statements you don't like are factually true, you suggest taboos and censorship, and do mental gymnastics in some sort of defence that facts don't matter.
Thank you for sticking with this one and responding. You are the 3rd real conversation I've had with someone that opposes Damore's memo. Sadly it's 3 for 3 that those in opposition are all fighting a strawman put forth by the media. They got on the war-path that he's satan incarnate and will hear no reason. You at least put forth a valid idea that utility to a company goes beyond individual merit and.... party composition is a thing. Which is a valid argument for why we should have diversity programs and not hire on individual merit alone. BUT AGAIN, not that I have any hope that it'll stick this time, Damore nor I are against diversity. But there's really no more use in talking to you. I can cure ignorance, I enjoy it. But you can't make the horse drink. Wilful ignorance is just too damn resilient and I'm done.
I used to be a strong feminist. But fuck this noise.
What we see today is that elections are held, whose outcome can be accurately predicted when one knows how much money each of the various candidates has spent.
That was more true in years past. But.... the last cycle didn't pan out that way.
Hillary Clinton, Total raised $1,191M
Donald Trump, Total raised $646.8M
Even in the primary, Jeb Bush was way WAY in the lead money-wise. And he didn't go anywhere.
2008? oh YEAH, Obama raised nearly DOUBLE that of McCain. He also broke records for number of small donors. People vote with their wallets before the elections. (The problem is that some people have much bigger wallets)
Not all facts, but facts about racial differences, yes.
Racial? ok... how about facts about the difference between men and women? You know, since that's the topic.
How about the genetic, regional, cultural, and historical? Sociological? It's hard to have a diversity class if you can't talk about the fact that there's low diversity, that's a sociological fact.
And I've had those debates with the asshats that try and point out Africa is poorer that Europe. But that doesn't help their assertion that black people are infeior because it's explained by the history of colonialism really screwing them over. Same thing right? Facts used by the bigots towards a bigoted end. I've asked what James Damore's sexist end was and all I've heard back was that he said women are neurotic. What did Damore propose that was sexist?
racial meritocracy,...If you try selecting a team based on what people of a certain race are very sightly better at on average,
Wut? Where the hell did this creep in? ok. no. Do not start beating up some strawman that isn't even in this discussion. I am not suggesting nor have ever suggested that we hire people based on their race.
Maybe I wasn't clear. I suggested we should hire based on merit. And in a scenario where there is definite, clear, and obvious trend in merit (like let's say women vs men when it comes to being surrogate mothers), the demographic composition of the industry will reflect that.
You're the one that claimed that sounded like "pseudo-utilitarian dystopia powered by scientific bigotry", which is really just you shit-talking. ok, it's kind of an argument I guess. This happens. But what I was describing was hiring based on MERIT. And this is what Damore ran into. No one is attacking him based on what he said, but a SHITSTORM grew out of what people THINK he was arguing for.
Bigotry is intolerance of those with different opinions....
LOLWUT? By this definition,
Um... yeah? "obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices:" I mean, that's only Merriam webster. Lemme seee.... There's Wikipedia: "Bigot is a term used to describe someone intolerant of the opinions of others."
But... ok. What did you think the definition of "bigot" was?
By this definition, being intolerant of nazis, NAMBLA members, you name it, is bigoted.
Oh yeah, that happens a lot. Tolerate intolerance. A lot of people have a hard time with this one.
But you can still be against all these scumbags not just because you have different opinions but because of the provable factual negative effects they have on society. NAMBLA fucks up kids. That's bad. Prove otherwise and I'll reconsider opposing NAMBLA, but that ain't going to happen. And for the love of god, YES even the NAZI's get to have political views. And share them in public. As Evelyn Hall paraphrased Voltaire, "I do not agree with that you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". If someone can't tolerate NAZIs having the same right to free speech as they do, that makes them a bigot.
And being as racist and sexist as all hell is not.
Noooo... I didn't follow that jump at all. Being sexist and racist is still being bigoted.
If someone has the opinion that men are pigs, and aren't open to any arguments otherwise, they're bigoted and sexist.
But if there's a definite advantage of X over Y, there should definitely be a disparity of people choosing more X than Y, cultural and social effects be damned.
Here's the kicker: There are no big advantages of X over Y in the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't like YOUR definition of intelligence. Not enough haggis.
As far as I know, intelligence means ability to gather knowledge through external experience
What, so a webcrawler is intelligent? It "gathers knowledge".
I'd typically just boil it down to "learning".
For an 'AI' to truly be intelligent at playing Go, it needs to start with a seed and be shown instructions to Go and learn how to play from that.
Keep up with the times grandpa. That's exactly what they did. No learning sets needed.
if someone programmed the rules for Go into it, then it has not learned to play through intelligence.
You need to better differentiation what you mean by "Shown instructions" and "programmed the rules".
The same 'seed' should also similarly be able to learn to play chess, do s crossword, or identify animals.
You have no idea what a "seed" is do you? It's just some nebulous term you've got rumbling around in your head that's pseudo-magical.
Anyway, the closest thing would be their method of machine learning. Which, for the link above which talks about DeepMind Alpha, it uses neural network and reinforcement learning. YEEEEESSSSSSS it self-taught go, chess and shogi. "The seed" is what DeepMind Alpha is. It's the tool that can learn things. That's the intelligence part. THE SAME TECHNIQUE is also used for object recognition. Hell, I dunno, maybe they could get deepMind to recognize pictures of cats.
Intelligence implies a certain amount of general purpose ability,
No, but general intelligence would be a lot cooler than specific, niche, narrow intelligence.
This is why a human savant that can't talk or understand anything about life but playing Go or Chess is not called 'intelligent'.
Wow, fuck you too dude. Most geeks are just some fraction of autistic savant. I know I'm better at math than English. If you're going to define my intelligence by my weakest link, then I'm going to call you an idiot for your ignorance on the current state of AI.
To me, AI means that the system is conscious, self aware.
And this hollywood-style definition is why AI researches are either laughed at or hyped beyond recognition.
current AI technology which hasn't changed in decades
Uh huh.
Recall that there was a recent AI project to find the meaning of the Internet
No, but it sounds interesting. Got a link?
And there in lies one of the biggest problems with our current AI, it's only able to do things that we ask it
Yes, but I wouldn't say that a problem.
and they need a clear solution.
No, they're quite capable of working towards a partial solution. Hill-climbing is a thing they do. They also work with unknowns and play a pretty damn good game of poker. They can make guesses and work with unknown goals. Blind search. They DO need some sort of fitness function or heuristic though. Same as people.
You can't exactly ask an AI, "do you think this person lived a happy life?"
If you feed them enough information about a person then YES, they can most certainly spot the trends and identify people suffering with depression.
I don't think you're a psychologist and perhaps you meant to use a more vague or mystical term like "full-filling", "meaningful", or "worthwhile". And when did hedonism become a socially acceptable philosophy?
I don't want 'good enough' AI driving 80,000 lb. trucks at 80 mph.
A total of 3,986 people died in large truck crashes in 2016.
Someone who doesn't understand what the term "Good enough" means isn't good enough to talk about AI.
Let's see some actual fucking self-driving cars in real-world scenarios for a few years,
In 2015, the US states of Nevada, Florida, California, Virginia, and Michigan, together with Washington, D.C. allowed the testing of autonomous cars on public roads.[30]
In 2017, Audi stated that its latest A8 would be autonomous at up to speeds of 60 km/h using its "Audi AI". The driver would not have to do safety checks such as frequently gripping the steering wheel. The Audi A8 was claimed to be the first production car to reach level 3 autonomous driving and Audi would be the first manufacturer to use laser scanners in addition to cameras and ultrasonic sensors for their system.[31]
In November 2017, Waymo announced that it had begun testing driverless cars without a safety driver at the driver position
let some high-volume stores try out 'robots' moving merchandise and ringing up customers,
. . . Oh, ok. You're a troll. Because self-checkout has been a thing and there are a lot fewer cashiers now.
Who the hell is this pseudo-cowardly -E dumbfuck?
We have code which solves [problems] similar to a neural network
Liiiiike, that network of neurons that's current inside your skull? Yes, many AIs work in a similar fashion.
and we have code which can mutate within very strict limits with genetic algorithms.
Yeah, GA is pretty cool. But those "strict limits" are similar to the limits on evolution. The same sort of limits that somehow turned single-celled bacteria (or self-replicating RNA before that) into plants, fish, trees, tigers, viruses, humans. (Not platypus's though, that's just too messed up.) The limits of GA are what the genes describe. If you use N-S-E-W as the genetic building blocks you can solve mazes... as long as they don't have to go northeast. If you use the 26 letters of the alphabet, you can form words and sentences, and theoretically stuff like shakespear. Just without any punctuation. If you use assembly instructions as the base of your GA, then it's limited by whatever a computer can do. I mean, while I like them, they're not the hottest thing right now, because they do have their drawbacks.
In addition to NN and GA, there's also search optimization, fuzzy logic, hidden Markov models, inductive logic, .... There's a lot out there.
We have nothing even approaching "artificial intelligence," which at the very minimum of the bar would be the level of an "intelligent" Human.
Stop trying to redefine terms. That's a ludicrously high bar. What kind of egocentric worldview is this? Do cats have zero intelligence? You're one step away from phrenology and declaring the Irish as sub-human. If you put intelligence on some sort of pedestal, then you hinder your ability to understand it.
AI isn't really intelligence
No true scotsman.
Its knowledge based on what is in its data base.
Yes, just like yours. And just like you, they can add to their knowledge.
Hardly any of it is considered really deep self learning other then some programmed learning abilities.
Yes, those parts are what we call AI.
But then again, people get excited about Space X launching a rocket that was done back in the 60's and 70's? Will AI hit a brick wall as well?
The DC-X was flown in the 90's. It ran out of funding after it's last launch caused damage. And just like the gap with VTVL, AI research had a couple of winters and the hype train is once again going strong.
But the cycle of hype and the resulting disillusionment doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The field has progressed and the capabilities of AI have expanded.
bloody cowards.
A "real" AI
No true scotsman
the ultimate psychopath: Intelligence without any kind of conscience.
Nobody calls a hammer a psychopath, it's just a tool. But you're exactly right, it'll be like corporations. Most of which are given the marching orders "Whatever make money". And just like corporations are heartless soulless and occasionally do horrible things, we'll have the same experience with AIs. But it all comes down to who is using them. Even a souless corporate overlord will call a halt when it's AI chatbot starts spouting racist rhetoric. A corporations asking a panel of analysts how best to minimize recall costs isn't different then asking an AI.
intelligence. I.e. the ability to use prior experience in totally new situations, evaluate those situations and draw conclusions that can be applied to react properly to it. And I mean totally new.
No true scotsman and you redefined a word to pidgeon-hole the debate.
Care to describe a totally new scenario that you've encountered where you had to employ your intelligence? Because I'm going to bet that you've used your past experience with similar problems to tackle new situations. JUUUUUUUUUUST like how AI can apply past learning sets on similar problems. Just... more narrowly. They're working on a broader, more general intelligence whose learning sets include more and there will be incremental improvements over time.
it's not possible (yet, maybe forever) to create an AI that can make such abstractions and apply old knowledge to new situations.
Uh huh.
I'd love to hear you differentiate the two.
Sweet. So assuming that they continue this avenue and create a host of commands they can transmit to everyone's home secretary via shows and songs, what sort of tools are going to be available for me to send out while I'm visiting that abnoxious friend with one of these things?
I mean, of course I can have my smartphone play this "ALEXA OFF" command on repeat and that'll save me from having to watch him, yet again, try and show off his latest toy. But there's bound to be other commands, right?
Being hypocrites doesn't mean they aren't right.
Sure, HALF the time. When they're talking out the other side of their head, they're lying. Because they're arguing BOTH SIDES.
Get rid of FISA
YES! Exactly. This is what they should do. Except they JUST did the opposite.
Not a fan of large subsurface ocean of liquid saltwater?
This is an advertisement. Who are you and why are you shilling?
"If this then that"
It's a collection of scripts that do automated tasks for people that are too stupid to write bash scripts to do it for themselves. It's "value add" aspect is that it handles log-ins for various accounts. So if you want to do a daily search of slashdot for any mention of Elon and mail you a summary.
The downside is that it's not only closed source, it's doing the mystic startup "We're too hip to tell you just wtf is going on" sort of way. I'm not real sure why companies do this. I think they think if investors realize this is nothing new and anyone can do it then they wouldn't invest. But not only do they hide what they do and how they do it, the only way they tell you a damn thing is if you sign up and register. It's a shifty startup making a walled garden of scripts that has all your account passwords.
But it's probably helpful for some people. Bash does kinda suck and handling keys is hard.
why... what is the end goal of having a Mars base?
Redundancy, and the spreading of life.
There is nowhere to go after that in a human lifespan at current (or 10x current) velocities.
Venus Mercury Ganymede Titan Callisto Io Moon Europa Triton Titania Rhea Oberon Iapetus Charon Umbriel Ariel Dione Tethys Enceladus Miranda Proteus Mimas Nereid Hyperion Phoebe, and then a bunch of smaller stuff.
Why is one (current) human lifespan a limiting factor?
Yes. This exactly.
It's not nature, it's the nature of the parents.... which nurture the child.
Let's say.... your parents have a cancer gene. Which thankfully you don't get. YAY!
BUT LO AND BEHOLD, that has an impact on the family which affects your upbringing. Tragedy sucks.
"genetic nurture", pft. That reeks of them trying to make up a fancy term for something that's dead simple and not surprising at all. I dunno, did I miss something in the article?
I'm a pretty liberal guy and the obvious refutation is that secrets are fundamentally different than violence. A kid with secrets isn't going to hurt anyone while a kid with a handful of violence can hurt himself and others. But that's just kinda knee-jerk partisian politics talking. I myself believe in the 2nd amendment for the whole "overthrowing tyranny" aspect. And to that effect, I've argued that hard, strong, REAL encryption should be protected under the 2nd amendment.
Could you build a plant, and operate it here following the same environmental and safety regulations used in China?
The answer is obviously no. Why? Because those working conditions and environmental practices would be condemned as immoral and an affront to the environment.
So, why then do people seem to think it suddenly becomes moral and OK to have those conditions in a place 3,000 miles away? If it's Not OK here, then it's not OK there.
Because a lot of people's moral compass hinges on the question "does it affect me?" If it doesn't, then it's not amoral. And that's a sliding scale. The less it affects them, the less heinous the crime. You can comment on what OUGHT to drive people's moral compass..... but you're just whining or preaching or bible thumping.
Sorry for the sad dose of realism, but while a lot of people believe in the labor and environmental movements, the amount they care diminishes with distance. The rich dick republicans who fight labor rights don't have family getting screwed by the bosses and chewed up by machinery. The anti-EPA libertarians don't breath smog daily.
seems to actually be racists.
Too far dude. It's not really racism, it's just "somebody-else"...ism. And until we're all yogi-floating everywhere in a zen state of empty-self and pure altruism... that shit ain't going anywhere. Seriously, stop making up shit about the opposition. Calling them racists is just too far, you damn dirty anti-vaxxer.
I mean, you're both right. No it's not a subsidy. Yes, the extra cost of solar panels (for those people who still buy from china) will go to the federal government. Yes, it means more people will buy American. Yes, they'll be paying more. Yes, it's corporate welfare. Yes it discourages switching to solar. Yes, it promotes US solar panel production.
They didn't really earn it... other than by "being American" and adhering to OSHA and EPA regulation. ...and pay US taxes? (Ha, that's silly US corporations don't pay taxes!). As for ethanol, heeey, it did it's job. We manage to make an alternative to oil. Woooo! But it turns out during the big squeeze leading up to (or causing) the financial crash, everyone invested into all sorts of alternatives and fracking gave us cheap gas again. While we suck out the last drops out of dry wells. So ethanol isn't really needed. At the moment.
All this said, I don't think 4 years is really enough time for any US manufacturer to wade into the market. So it's really just a sweetheart kiss to the existing manufacturers. Or life support. I dunno the state of the industry. But in general tariffs and barriers to free trade is just slitting your own throat.
Grants. We call those grants. If it was sold to the US people as a "loan program" when it didn't expect to get the money back, that.... could be fraud. The government trying to get into the "venture capitalist" business where they give out tax money to risky ventures would be so ripe for corruption it's an obviously bad idea. You can't trust people to make bets with other people's money.
I'd fully support R&D grants to help solar technology and engineering. Like this guy. He looks cool. I'm down for that.
It'd be kinda funny if all tinder profiles in a coffee shop were suddenly pictures of the barista.
I saw this writing on the wall WAAAAY back in 2004. I thought to myself "Man, web-dev tech is in constant turmoil. I've got on option about which tech I'm going to learn. Do I learn something that will be useless in 4 years or do I learn something that will be around forever." And long story short, I'm an embedded SW engineer working on Satellites in the one true language that's absolutely perfect for every application ever.... C.
I DO oppose NAZIs! WTF is wrong with you leaping to conclusions!? Holy SHIT I support freedom of speech so I must be a NAZI? That's nuts.
Damore pointed out one reason for the gender gap that you took offence to, and he then proposed how deal with it to fix it the gap. Apparently you're against that too since you're opposed to everything. You have likewise obstinately insisted that he's sexist.
If you're unwilling to tolerate anyone with ideas that don't line up with yours, and will oppose anything put forth by them by default simply because you disagree with a single (factually true) statement... I've got some bad news for you. Per the definition, you're a bigot.
Ha, I can't believe you threw out this:
you're the one trying to bend sweet lady logic into a pretzel
Immediately followed by this curve ball:
Tolerance is opposition to discrimination based on immutable traits, not just putting up with things, so "tolerating" intolerance would be self-defeating and pointless.
Siiiigh, but you probably don't even see the hypocrisy. But no kiddo, if you're only willing to tolerate people who agree with you, then you're a bigot. If you try to silence, shame, or get them fired, then you're also pretty fascist. Not a full-on fascist until you support brown-shirts exacting physical violence and intimidation, but you're on your way. You're quick to demonize anyone that speaks out against you.
I at least can admit I'm a little bigoted. I just can't stand wilful ignorance. You're insistent that Damore is sexist. When confronted with the fact that the statements you don't like are factually true, you suggest taboos and censorship, and do mental gymnastics in some sort of defence that facts don't matter.
Thank you for sticking with this one and responding. You are the 3rd real conversation I've had with someone that opposes Damore's memo. Sadly it's 3 for 3 that those in opposition are all fighting a strawman put forth by the media. They got on the war-path that he's satan incarnate and will hear no reason. You at least put forth a valid idea that utility to a company goes beyond individual merit and.... party composition is a thing. Which is a valid argument for why we should have diversity programs and not hire on individual merit alone. BUT AGAIN, not that I have any hope that it'll stick this time, Damore nor I are against diversity. But there's really no more use in talking to you. I can cure ignorance, I enjoy it. But you can't make the horse drink. Wilful ignorance is just too damn resilient and I'm done.
I used to be a strong feminist. But fuck this noise.
What we see today is that elections are held, whose outcome can be accurately predicted when one knows how much money each of the various candidates has spent.
That was more true in years past. But.... the last cycle didn't pan out that way.
Hillary Clinton, Total raised $1,191M
Donald Trump, Total raised $646.8M
Even in the primary, Jeb Bush was way WAY in the lead money-wise. And he didn't go anywhere.
2008? oh YEAH, Obama raised nearly DOUBLE that of McCain. He also broke records for number of small donors. People vote with their wallets before the elections. (The problem is that some people have much bigger wallets)
Not all facts, but facts about racial differences, yes.
Racial? ok... how about facts about the difference between men and women? You know, since that's the topic.
How about the genetic, regional, cultural, and historical? Sociological? It's hard to have a diversity class if you can't talk about the fact that there's low diversity, that's a sociological fact.
And I've had those debates with the asshats that try and point out Africa is poorer that Europe. But that doesn't help their assertion that black people are infeior because it's explained by the history of colonialism really screwing them over. Same thing right? Facts used by the bigots towards a bigoted end. I've asked what James Damore's sexist end was and all I've heard back was that he said women are neurotic. What did Damore propose that was sexist?
racial meritocracy, ...If you try selecting a team based on what people of a certain race are very sightly better at on average,
Wut? Where the hell did this creep in? ok. no. Do not start beating up some strawman that isn't even in this discussion. I am not suggesting nor have ever suggested that we hire people based on their race.
Maybe I wasn't clear. I suggested we should hire based on merit. And in a scenario where there is definite, clear, and obvious trend in merit (like let's say women vs men when it comes to being surrogate mothers), the demographic composition of the industry will reflect that.
You're the one that claimed that sounded like "pseudo-utilitarian dystopia powered by scientific bigotry", which is really just you shit-talking. ok, it's kind of an argument I guess. This happens. But what I was describing was hiring based on MERIT. And this is what Damore ran into. No one is attacking him based on what he said, but a SHITSTORM grew out of what people THINK he was arguing for.
Bigotry is intolerance of those with different opinions....
LOLWUT? By this definition,
Um... yeah? "obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices :" I mean, that's only Merriam webster. Lemme seee.... There's Wikipedia: "Bigot is a term used to describe someone intolerant of the opinions of others."
But... ok. What did you think the definition of "bigot" was?
By this definition, being intolerant of nazis, NAMBLA members, you name it, is bigoted.
Oh yeah, that happens a lot. Tolerate intolerance. A lot of people have a hard time with this one.
But you can still be against all these scumbags not just because you have different opinions but because of the provable factual negative effects they have on society. NAMBLA fucks up kids. That's bad. Prove otherwise and I'll reconsider opposing NAMBLA, but that ain't going to happen. And for the love of god, YES even the NAZI's get to have political views. And share them in public. As Evelyn Hall paraphrased Voltaire, "I do not agree with that you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". If someone can't tolerate NAZIs having the same right to free speech as they do, that makes them a bigot.
And being as racist and sexist as all hell is not.
Noooo... I didn't follow that jump at all. Being sexist and racist is still being bigoted.
If someone has the opinion that men are pigs, and aren't open to any arguments otherwise, they're bigoted and sexist.
But if there's a definite advantage of X over Y, there should definitely be a disparity of people choosing more X than Y, cultural and social effects be damned.
Here's the kicker: There are no big advantages of X over Y in the real world.
Well. X and Y a
It sucks hard.