What he/she is saying is that to be AI it has to have a ??? step, as in:
1) Read input 2) Process data 3) ??? 4) Print out results
Because the examples above have an explainable third step ledow does not consider it proper AI.... pshaw!
Heck, it's a computer. It can only do what is supposed to do (just like the human brain). If either one of them learns is because it was built to learn, "DOWN TO THE LETTER" (automatic 10pt IQ discount for using all caps, btw).
This was true until recently. But now that we have multi-car multi-track elevators it is no longer true. I visited recently a rather tall facility that had only three (!!) elevator shafts, with five cars per shaft. Three dedicated to short hauls (up/down a couple of floors) and two for ground floor-to-top. A car will come down drop people at ground floor, while a car follow behind it on the same shaft would switch shaft near the bottom and open at ground floor at a different shaft.
You punch in your destination while you are waiting, and you are told which elevator car to board.
From what I know about skyscraper construction, the biggest challenge will be access to the site. There is just so much material that needs to be delivered to put up a building of that height at that pace, even if prefabricated.
I'm aware they built a hotel in 15 days, but this building is about 300x times larger by mass and they are only giving themselves 6x more time. This means they have to work at a 50x rate as compared to the previous project.
Cores can be shut down to conserve power, as can caches in some cases, but instruction decoders cannot.
This is not how a modern x86 processor works. The arcane instruction set doesn't even reach the instruction registers. At the pipeline stage a simple power efficient test can isolate the CISC-like instructions and handle them through a different, normally dormant silicon compiler. This means CISC instructions execute way slower, since they are pulled out of the fast path, which is why they are so heavily deprecated in Intel's technical documents, but they are still there, and no, they do not consume massive amounts of power to decode.
That's real estate that could be spent on bigger cache or more registers.
Right, because real estate is at such a premium that we can barely manage to fit in four cores on a single die with 8M cache, so we couldn't possibly afford a few hundred transistors to decode the arcane instruction set.
You should go back to bed and set your alarm clock to 2012. Real estate for instruction decoders stopped being an issue over ten years ago.
Intel's victory has more to do with the adoption of RISC principles which include deprecation of various truly CISC instructions of the x86 set, than manufacturing power. Granted, initially they won some rounds on manufacturing power, but by the 386 they were already deprecating the worse instructions. They are still there for backward compatibility and they are silicon compiled in the fly into simpler RISC-like instructions, but compiler writers are told not to use those instructions to begin with.
That is the cost today. Five years ago the cost was $70K per year, and five years before that it was over $100K per year.
but with a fairly small variance (even the 95th percentile isn't a lot more).
95th percentile doesn't cut it here. That means there is one chance in twenty that you will require more money than that. Insurance should cover events such as a house fire, or major car accident or rare diseases which have a one-in-hundreds to one-in-thousands chance of occurring.
And if you think that the Canadian public health service is going to pay "millions of dollars" for your chronic condition, you are in for a rude awakening.
They already have. One million dollars and counting for a very close relative. So once again you are wrong.
But even if they were to drop me, I have enough saved to be able to pay for pretty anything that I want to do to myself and my body. If you don't, you really haven't saved enough money.
You are the exception that happens to be wealthy to self-fund your own health insurance and you are trying to use this as an argument to deny the value of treatment to the general population. This proves that your argument is bogus as I claimed.
The higher income and the money I saved in taxes in the US allowed me to save more than enough money to retire and take care of my health care needs myself.
I call BS. If you contract a chronic condition your expenditures would be in the millions of dollars, which cannot be covered from savings from a regular salary. So either you have private insurance and you are hoping they won't drop you, or you will have to rely on medicare which is a government program.
Thanks, but I'll take private health insurance and private retirement over a government program any day.
The US spends about twice the amount of money for the same health outcomes as the rest of the developed world. Why would you prefer this system to a more efficient government program defies all reason, though you seem to be quite content making such an illogical choice purely on ideological grounds.
Krugman did a lot of revolutionary work in Economics, much before the great recession was an interest of his. From your posting it is clear you do not know much economics, since you speak of "fiat currencies" as if they were a relatively recent development, when in fact currencies were already being debased 2000 years ago, in effect making them fiat. Indeed the very term "debasing" comes from diluting the metal alloy.
Economics has the problem that people feel they are experts on it simply because they spend money. To make things even more complicated it is full of counter-intuitive results.
For example suppose you have a company whose fixed costs are making it lose money, so the natural thing is to lower expenditures right? Well it turns out that if your company has a successful wealth-producing idea, then actually the best thing to do is to spend more money. I kid you not. Read on.
You can model your product/idea/merchandise as a black box that takes $1 dollar as input and produces (after manufacturing, advertisement, sales, wages, etc) $1.40 in return. Your $0.40 is your profit margin. Problem is your fixed costs are eating into the profits. So either you can work really hard at reducing fixed costs (hint: they are fixed, so how low do can they go?) or you can invest money, up your production of thingamajigs, and cover the fixed costs from increased sales.
The solution to your company's money losing woes in this case is to spend more money. There are many more like it. So every simpleton and their brother (including high up politicians) thinks they have a grasp of the problem when they don't.
So far during the great recession things have evolved pretty much the way Krugman called them, when conventional wisdom was pointing in a different direction.
So forgive me if I give more credence to the Memorial Nobel Prize of Economics opinion than yours.
For better or for worse, betting on self-interest over altruism usually wins.
Actually, GM opposed a public health mandate during the Truman administration. Over the years management has come to regret this decision greatly. Public health care in Canada has been repeatedly cited by management as one of the reasons why they still have operations in Canada even though the hourly rate is by now higher in Canada. They make the savings back by not having to directly fund healthcare for their employees.
Government cannot create private sector jobs. Period.
Creation of infrastructure is a net producer of jobs. For example a highway connecting two cities increases the wealth of both cities for decades after, due to the increased efficiencies of trade. This is a well known and studied phenomenon.
"Government cannot create private sector jobs" is a meme from the republican party. Initially it was "Governments cannot create jobs" [Senator Shelby, Republican, 2010] . When people pointed out the absolute falsehood of that statement, particularly during recessionary times, the GOP went back to the drawing board and reissued it in its current version. It is still false, but as all memes, that doesn't stop it from being passed on.
That is not a good source. Over the last twenty years, UN population projections have been wrong by a wide margin. Actual growth has consistently clocked below the medium projection, yet the UN continues issuing the alarmist high projection line which frankly has 0% chances of happening.
Let me illustrate with an example. According to the figures used as a source for that chart, population in Germany for 2015 will be 81.4M according to the "median variant". In reality that is the population of Germany today and at the rate it has been dropping it will be 80.8M by 2015.
Where can you find that figure in the UN sources may I ask? in the "low variant" column of their projection.
For all practical purposes the UN medium projection is the worst case scenario. Once your remove the fictional red line at the top from the wikipedia chart the situation looks actually quite manageable.
That is not a good source. Over the last twenty years, UN population projections have been wrong by a wide margin. Actual growth has consistently clocked below the medium projection, yet the UN continues issuing the alarmist high projection line which frankly has 0% chances of happening.
Correct, which is why it is equally racist to use terms such as white or WASP. I refuse to fill any box asking what's my race, as if that was a well defined concept outside of racist preconceptions.
if you describe an individual's skin color as black or white
That's where the rub lies. Most people use white/black to describe the person, not the skin. Most USA forms ask if your race/racial group is white, it does not ask if your skin is white.
If he made $100k in SF, first he would see only about $74k of that after taxes, whereas in Idaho he would get about $42k after taxes.
Then he said he paid $2000+ a month in rent, which according to my multiplication table is $24k+ per year, not $12k (hey, maybe my table is in metric units?). Let say he was paying $2150 a month or $26k a year.
So his net is:
In SF: $74k - $26k = $44k
In Idaho: $42k- $3.6k = $38.4k
So the original difference of 50% less salary is reduced to 13% before we add any other expenses which are also higher in SF.
Correct, which is why it is equally racist to use terms such as white or WASP. Countries which are truly not racist don't have such classifications to begin with.
Right, because all Asians are the same. They all write funny and use chopsticks and have slanted eyes. We all know there is no difference between a muslim third world Malay and a shintoist first world Japanese immigrant. They are all uniformly "Asian".
TARP was proposed by George W. Bush or more precisely, his Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson. The "bribes" (politely known as riders) came as much from the White House as from Democrats.
But yeah, both parties are often beholding to the wealthy.
Slashdot Mirror
Can someone please mod down the parent.
What he/she is saying is that to be AI it has to have a ??? step, as in:
1) Read input
2) Process data
3) ???
4) Print out results
Because the examples above have an explainable third step ledow does not consider it proper AI.... pshaw!
Heck, it's a computer. It can only do what is supposed to do (just like the human brain). If either one of them learns is because it was built to learn, "DOWN TO THE LETTER" (automatic 10pt IQ discount for using all caps, btw).
This was true until recently. But now that we have multi-car multi-track elevators it is no longer true. I visited recently a rather tall facility that had only three (!!) elevator shafts, with five cars per shaft. Three dedicated to short hauls (up/down a couple of floors) and two for ground floor-to-top. A car will come down drop people at ground floor, while a car follow behind it on the same shaft would switch shaft near the bottom and open at ground floor at a different shaft.
You punch in your destination while you are waiting, and you are told which elevator car to board.
From what I know about skyscraper construction, the biggest challenge will be access to the site. There is just so much material that needs to be delivered to put up a building of that height at that pace, even if prefabricated.
I'm aware they built a hotel in 15 days, but this building is about 300x times larger by mass and they are only giving themselves 6x more time. This means they have to work at a 50x rate as compared to the previous project.
Conclusion: color me doubtful.
which are significantly larger than merely thousands of transistors.
They are not. Microcode translators are not particularly big even for an entire instruction set, much less for a few deprecated instructions.
Cores can be shut down to conserve power, as can caches in some cases, but instruction decoders cannot.
This is not how a modern x86 processor works. The arcane instruction set doesn't even reach the instruction registers. At the pipeline stage a simple power efficient test can isolate the CISC-like instructions and handle them through a different, normally dormant silicon compiler. This means CISC instructions execute way slower, since they are pulled out of the fast path, which is why they are so heavily deprecated in Intel's technical documents, but they are still there, and no, they do not consume massive amounts of power to decode.
That's real estate that could be spent on bigger cache or more registers.
Right, because real estate is at such a premium that we can barely manage to fit in four cores on a single die with 8M cache, so we couldn't possibly afford a few hundred transistors to decode the arcane instruction set.
You should go back to bed and set your alarm clock to 2012. Real estate for instruction decoders stopped being an issue over ten years ago.
Exactly this.
Intel's victory has more to do with the adoption of RISC principles which include deprecation of various truly CISC instructions of the x86 set, than manufacturing power. Granted, initially they won some rounds on manufacturing power, but by the 386 they were already deprecating the worse instructions. They are still there for backward compatibility and they are silicon compiled in the fly into simpler RISC-like instructions, but compiler writers are told not to use those instructions to begin with.
HIV is about $20000/year
That is the cost today. Five years ago the cost was $70K per year, and five years before that it was over $100K per year.
but with a fairly small variance (even the 95th percentile isn't a lot more).
95th percentile doesn't cut it here. That means there is one chance in twenty that you will require more money than that. Insurance should cover events such as a house fire, or major car accident or rare diseases which have a one-in-hundreds to one-in-thousands chance of occurring.
And if you think that the Canadian public health service is going to pay "millions of dollars" for your chronic condition, you are in for a rude awakening.
They already have. One million dollars and counting for a very close relative. So once again you are wrong.
But even if they were to drop me, I have enough saved to be able to pay for pretty anything that I want to do to myself and my body. If you don't, you really haven't saved enough money.
You are the exception that happens to be wealthy to self-fund your own health insurance and you are trying to use this as an argument to deny the value of treatment to the general population. This proves that your argument is bogus as I claimed.
Red states are In rural areas you have land and you are more self reliant.
Actually Red states are higher recipients of Federal aid than Blue states.
The higher income and the money I saved in taxes in the US allowed me to save more than enough money to retire and take care of my health care needs myself.
I call BS. If you contract a chronic condition your expenditures would be in the millions of dollars, which cannot be covered from savings from a regular salary. So either you have private insurance and you are hoping they won't drop you, or you will have to rely on medicare which is a government program.
Thanks, but I'll take private health insurance and private retirement over a government program any day.
The US spends about twice the amount of money for the same health outcomes as the rest of the developed world. Why would you prefer this system to a more efficient government program defies all reason, though you seem to be quite content making such an illogical choice purely on ideological grounds.
Krugman did a lot of revolutionary work in Economics, much before the great recession was an interest of his. From your posting it is clear you do not know much economics, since you speak of "fiat currencies" as if they were a relatively recent development, when in fact currencies were already being debased 2000 years ago, in effect making them fiat. Indeed the very term "debasing" comes from diluting the metal alloy.
Economics has the problem that people feel they are experts on it simply because they spend money. To make things even more complicated it is full of counter-intuitive results.
For example suppose you have a company whose fixed costs are making it lose money, so the natural thing is to lower expenditures right? Well it turns out that if your company has a successful wealth-producing idea, then actually the best thing to do is to spend more money. I kid you not. Read on.
You can model your product/idea/merchandise as a black box that takes $1 dollar as input and produces (after manufacturing, advertisement, sales, wages, etc) $1.40 in return. Your $0.40 is your profit margin. Problem is your fixed costs are eating into the profits. So either you can work really hard at reducing fixed costs (hint: they are fixed, so how low do can they go?) or you can invest money, up your production of thingamajigs, and cover the fixed costs from increased sales.
The solution to your company's money losing woes in this case is to spend more money. There are many more like it. So every simpleton and their brother (including high up politicians) thinks they have a grasp of the problem when they don't.
So far during the great recession things have evolved pretty much the way Krugman called them, when conventional wisdom was pointing in a different direction.
So forgive me if I give more credence to the Memorial Nobel Prize of Economics opinion than yours.
Why would I want a Canadian-style health care and retirement plan when I already have a better private plan in the US?
For the time when you get fired from your current job.
For better or for worse, betting on self-interest over altruism usually wins.
Actually, GM opposed a public health mandate during the Truman administration. Over the years management has come to regret this decision greatly. Public health care in Canada has been repeatedly cited by management as one of the reasons why they still have operations in Canada even though the hourly rate is by now higher in Canada. They make the savings back by not having to directly fund healthcare for their employees.
Government cannot create private sector jobs. Period.
Creation of infrastructure is a net producer of jobs. For example a highway connecting two cities increases the wealth of both cities for decades after, due to the increased efficiencies of trade. This is a well known and studied phenomenon.
"Government cannot create private sector jobs" is a meme from the republican party. Initially it was "Governments cannot create jobs" [Senator Shelby, Republican, 2010] . When people pointed out the absolute falsehood of that statement, particularly during recessionary times, the GOP went back to the drawing board and reissued it in its current version. It is still false, but as all memes, that doesn't stop it from being passed on.
Japan had twice the per capita GDP over America.. [citation needed]
Japan is an economic joke!
Japan's GDP per capita is only $4K less a year than the USA and higher than Germany's. Some joke!
That is not a good source. Over the last twenty years, UN population projections have been wrong by a wide margin. Actual growth has consistently clocked below the medium projection, yet the UN continues issuing the alarmist high projection line which frankly has 0% chances of happening.
Let me illustrate with an example. According to the figures used as a source for that chart, population in Germany for 2015 will be 81.4M according to the "median variant". In reality that is the population of Germany today and at the rate it has been dropping it will be 80.8M by 2015.
Where can you find that figure in the UN sources may I ask? in the "low variant" column of their projection.
For all practical purposes the UN medium projection is the worst case scenario. Once your remove the fictional red line at the top from the wikipedia chart the situation looks actually quite manageable.
That is not a good source. Over the last twenty years, UN population projections have been wrong by a wide margin. Actual growth has consistently clocked below the medium projection, yet the UN continues issuing the alarmist high projection line which frankly has 0% chances of happening.
Correct, which is why it is equally racist to use terms such as white or WASP. I refuse to fill any box asking what's my race, as if that was a well defined concept outside of racist preconceptions.
if you describe an individual's skin color as black or white
That's where the rub lies. Most people use white/black to describe the person, not the skin. Most USA forms ask if your race/racial group is white, it does not ask if your skin is white.
If he made $100k in SF, first he would see only about $74k of that after taxes, whereas in Idaho he would get about $42k after taxes.
Then he said he paid $2000+ a month in rent, which according to my multiplication table is $24k+ per year, not $12k (hey, maybe my table is in metric units?). Let say he was paying $2150 a month or $26k a year.
So his net is:
In SF: $74k - $26k = $44k
In Idaho: $42k- $3.6k = $38.4k
So the original difference of 50% less salary is reduced to 13% before we add any other expenses which are also higher in SF.
Correct, which is why it is equally racist to use terms such as white or WASP. Countries which are truly not racist don't have such classifications to begin with.
Right, because all Asians are the same. They all write funny and use chopsticks and have slanted eyes. We all know there is no difference between a muslim third world Malay and a shintoist first world Japanese immigrant. They are all uniformly "Asian".
the Republicans [in congress] rejected it.
This is no way contradicts that it was proposed by George Bush. In this case the congress republicans simply didn't go along.
which included earmarks added by Democrats in order to convince their republican colleagues
Republicans and democrats are equally complicit in this act of corruption.
What you wrote is, at best, misleading.
TARP was proposed by George W. Bush or more precisely, his Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson. The "bribes" (politely known as riders) came as much from the White House as from Democrats.
But yeah, both parties are often beholding to the wealthy.