You are assuming that the end goal AI is going to be modeled after our brains. There may be many different types of AI: artificial brains modeled after biology, neural learning nets, or brute force methods similar to IBM's watson (and probably dozens of other approaches). Or with sufficient hardware gains in the future, some "best of all worlds" combination AI.
It allows us to process huge amounts of information with the cost of inaccuracy.
And what happens when a computer is able to process huge amounts of info with zero inaccuracies? That is purely a hardware limit.
I can see you argument easier if you made it from a grey/opinion area. Some things do not have black and white answers. Some things really are matters of opinion. No amount of computing power can get around that issue.
The constitution doesn't speak though. Someone, somewhere, has to interpret it. Especially when it is applied to something new.
When the constitution was written, Arms, in other words armament which means "military weapons and equipment" amounted to cannons and rifles.
Is your suggestion that every time a new type of armament was invented (tanks, nukes, etc..), we would need to amend the constitution to specifically disallow it? Or were you thinking of some more creative amendment like, "a person can only own armament that generate X amount of destructive force per second". We seem to do that with law right now. Limit clips, disallow rocket launchers being sold to unlicensed folks, etc..
Any reasonable recommendations can only come from large, longitudinal studies, over multiple generations. You know, those that shape the food pyramid / WHO guidelines.
Bullshit. Look at the actual science. Endocrinologists can tell you how your body processes nutrients based on hormones. Hormones COMPLETELY control fat storage and use. Diet dramatically affects hormone secretion. As one put it: "Carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat storage"
"Carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat storage" is a fact. How that fact fits in an overall diet and exercise plan, and how effective that plan is over the course of lifetime, is a lot more complicated.
Oh... lead acid would explain the lower cost. You can see from the above link that all of the chinese e-bikes using lithium ion cost 400 dollars for a 10Ah battery.
All taxes are ultimately paid by the people as a whole
I do not know why some people think this is true. A company producing X and selling it for Y, isn't going to automatically raise the cost of X if their taxes go up. Is that what you mean? Passed on to the consumer?
Because that is wrong. A company producing X is going to seek to sell it at the highest cost they can, always. A higher tax may make their profit margin go down, but it doesn't automatically translate to a cost to consumers, or society as a whole.
That is why the US wealth inequality is so high right now. Company profit is not often used to expand business, or hire more people. It is just making rich folks richer. The rich/corporations generally understand that if there is no extra demand for a product or service, it makes little sense to expand production of that service.
New products and services are different. But those come on to the market at a much slower rate the consumption of existing products and services. Hence, when your average company gets a tax break, it does not, on average, mean more jobs or a cheaper costing product.
Gentrification can fix rundown neighborhoods and bring in upscale businesses, but it doesn't improve the lives of the people that were living in that area. It just displaces them. In other words, gentrification fixes buildings and property values, not people.
Welfare is a safety net. It can help someone pick themselves up after either bad luck or bad decisions, but it isn't a permanent solution.
Or... the problem could be that we charge anything at all for education. Like health care, some things are too important, too fundamental, and too unsuited to market forces, to remain as 'for profit' ventures.
Yeah, we have "townhouses" in America too. They're for people still trying to realize the American Dream.
I guess it depends where you are looking for a townhouse/brownstone. In New York it can cost you 6+ million dollars to live close to downtown in a brownstone. Some people like the access to concerts, shows, good restaurants, all within walking distance or subway distance.
Portland, OR: max train connects many sections of the town to the city center.
Out of curiosity I googled for "US cities with rail and subways" first hit: http://www.urbanrail.net/am/america.htm
I have no idea how many of those rail and subway lines are good at connecting where people live to where people work, but it surprised me to see rail/subway in places like Utah.
I'm guessing he meant "half of the budget", not GDP. Which, when you add in VA and other long term veteran benefits, does approach 50% depending on what things you choose to label "military/defense".
You guys aren't that bad, you just can't compete with Europe or Asia (how should you? the US is quite bigger and harder to lay down fiber)
That argument needs to be put to rest. If New York City and Los Angeles do not have a fiber option, then the lack of fiber has nothing to do with population density.
What happens in a community when 50+% of the inhabitants are native Spanish speakers? Still force them to use English when they are the majority?
There is no Federal official language for the USA (is that the country you were referring to?). Each community decides how best to server its population. While some States list English as their official language, most services, like hospitals, will still support multiple languages if their community has significant diversity.
French is fading and being mixed against the cultural influence of English media. In 50 years, it will be the second language in Quebec.
This is what gets me about almost any "conservative" worldview. It is obvious that the society and culture are going to change over time, why fight it? Like gay marriage in the US. It is obvious that over time people that are against gay marriage will be the minority. And with even more time, the gay marriage "fight" will be written in history books as a civil rights fight that the 'good guys' won (the people fighting for equality regardless of sexual preference).
Language is even more fluid than social issues. All languages are constantly evolving. It seems to me that rather than fighting language change, Quebec would be better off identifying important cultural items, like traditional holidays, food, songs, etc.. and codifying those into law as the 'official X' of Quebec. Beyond that, there isn't much more you can do to preserve culture. Culture changes.
If I recall correctly, the RATE of increased warming has diminished to nearly flat due to multiple factors, however, the overall temperature is still going up (if you take Ocean warming into account). The reason the planet is still retaining an increasing amount of energy is attributed to GHG emission.
How about some consideration of alternatives to GHG reduction
I'm not following you.
Alternatives to GHG reduction? Like the cost of a geo-engineering solution to climate change instead of reducing C02 output? http://e360.yale.edu/feature/solar_geoengineering_weighing_costs_of_blocking_the_suns_rays/2727/ It is being talked about, but it is no where near as scientifically sound (or agreed upon) as just moving away from non-renewables.
There have been studies about the cost of re-locating the hundreds of millions of people that live along cost lines, as well as all the city infrastructure along low lying costs, and those costs are staggering. Of course, sea level rise is gradual, so we are talking about 50-100 years, but it will be costly nevertheless. Would we rather relocate all low level coastal cities in the next 100 years, or do some geo-engineering combined with swapping out non-renewable power sources over the next 100 years?
and forcing people to switch to renewables?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'forcing'. Wind energy where I live is already just as cheap as traditional power generation. I "switched" and I didn't even know it. The electric company was mandated by the legislature to meet renewable targets over the course of many decades. 10% (wind) and climbing here in Oregon. And the rate of change is slow enough that the electric companies are not having much difficulty reaching the targets.
Are you talking about forcing coal plants to shut down and the studying the cost of that? I am unaware of anyone studying such a thing, because as far as I know, no one has proposed it.
What I do know, is that if the external costs of coal/oil were included in their market prices (pollution, C02, foreign wars, etc..), people would be running for renewables.
The news always sensationalizes things. A smart person doesn't rely on the news to accurately report on anything even remotely related to science.
But ask yourself what other general areas of science, that enjoy broad scientific consensus, are constantly attacked in the media and other conservative outlets (news, radio, etc..)?
If we eliminate the far religious right stuff (creationism, etc..), and just focus on mainstream conservatives, I can't think of any other scientific areas with broad scientific support, except climate change, that are so challenged.
Do you see why so many people don't listen to those who are trying to push human-caused climate change?
So maybe it has nothing at all to do with the news cherry picking some sensational headlines. They do that all the time. Maybe it has more to do with a massive industrially financed propaganda campaign to smear climate science, that is relentless, and being pushed through all forms of media. Just like some of the very same PR agencies did when tobacco came under fire as a possible cause of cancer.
Slashdot Mirror
Are they required to disclose that they are doing MITM attacks on https traffic though?
That is one of Kurweil's main themes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
You are assuming that the end goal AI is going to be modeled after our brains. There may be many different types of AI: artificial brains modeled after biology, neural learning nets, or brute force methods similar to IBM's watson (and probably dozens of other approaches). Or with sufficient hardware gains in the future, some "best of all worlds" combination AI.
It allows us to process huge amounts of information with the cost of inaccuracy.
And what happens when a computer is able to process huge amounts of info with zero inaccuracies? That is purely a hardware limit.
I can see you argument easier if you made it from a grey/opinion area. Some things do not have black and white answers. Some things really are matters of opinion. No amount of computing power can get around that issue.
The constitution doesn't speak though. Someone, somewhere, has to interpret it. Especially when it is applied to something new.
When the constitution was written, Arms, in other words armament which means "military weapons and equipment" amounted to cannons and rifles.
Is your suggestion that every time a new type of armament was invented (tanks, nukes, etc..), we would need to amend the constitution to specifically disallow it? Or were you thinking of some more creative amendment like, "a person can only own armament that generate X amount of destructive force per second". We seem to do that with law right now. Limit clips, disallow rocket launchers being sold to unlicensed folks, etc..
What is Rebirth? Can you provide a link. Googling for it returns lots of differing results.
XP mode is the way we run multiple versions of IE under Win7 for web development. It works well.
Any reasonable recommendations can only come from large, longitudinal studies, over multiple generations. You know, those that shape the food pyramid / WHO guidelines.
Bullshit. Look at the actual science. Endocrinologists can tell you how your body processes nutrients based on hormones. Hormones COMPLETELY control fat storage and use. Diet dramatically affects hormone secretion. As one put it: "Carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat storage"
"Carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat storage" is a fact. How that fact fits in an overall diet and exercise plan, and how effective that plan is over the course of lifetime, is a lot more complicated.
http://www.alibaba.com/countrysearch/CN/electric-bike.html
Oh... lead acid would explain the lower cost. You can see from the above link that all of the chinese e-bikes using lithium ion cost 400 dollars for a 10Ah battery.
400 dollar = 10Ah battery pack. I bet this guy's battery is twice that power or more.
All taxes are ultimately paid by the people as a whole
I do not know why some people think this is true. A company producing X and selling it for Y, isn't going to automatically raise the cost of X if their taxes go up. Is that what you mean? Passed on to the consumer?
Because that is wrong. A company producing X is going to seek to sell it at the highest cost they can, always. A higher tax may make their profit margin go down, but it doesn't automatically translate to a cost to consumers, or society as a whole.
That is why the US wealth inequality is so high right now. Company profit is not often used to expand business, or hire more people. It is just making rich folks richer. The rich/corporations generally understand that if there is no extra demand for a product or service, it makes little sense to expand production of that service.
New products and services are different. But those come on to the market at a much slower rate the consumption of existing products and services. Hence, when your average company gets a tax break, it does not, on average, mean more jobs or a cheaper costing product.
Gentrification can fix rundown neighborhoods and bring in upscale businesses, but it doesn't improve the lives of the people that were living in that area. It just displaces them. In other words, gentrification fixes buildings and property values, not people.
Welfare is a safety net. It can help someone pick themselves up after either bad luck or bad decisions, but it isn't a permanent solution.
The problem is that anyone can get a loan
Or... the problem could be that we charge anything at all for education. Like health care, some things are too important, too fundamental, and too unsuited to market forces, to remain as 'for profit' ventures.
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/M-618.pdf
I don't know if things changed or not, but currently there is no requirement to speak or write english to immigrate to the US.
If they sell homeopathic items
I thought, surely they don't actually sell homeopathic crap. People are just exaggerating. Then I found this link:
Homeopathy for Cold and Flu Season
Wow.. that is disappointing.
http://www.townhouseexperts.com/ . Brownstone-style living has a lot thicker walls.
If your interests are more cultural: music, concerts, shows, restaurants, museums, etc.. living in a city center is attractive.
Yeah, we have "townhouses" in America too. They're for people still trying to realize the American Dream.
I guess it depends where you are looking for a townhouse/brownstone. In New York it can cost you 6+ million dollars to live close to downtown in a brownstone. Some people like the access to concerts, shows, good restaurants, all within walking distance or subway distance.
....where else?
Portland, OR: max train connects many sections of the town to the city center.
Out of curiosity I googled for "US cities with rail and subways" first hit: http://www.urbanrail.net/am/america.htm
I have no idea how many of those rail and subway lines are good at connecting where people live to where people work, but it surprised me to see rail/subway in places like Utah.
People need to stop generalizing about city/suburbs in the US. There is a lot of variability.
I'm guessing he meant "half of the budget", not GDP. Which, when you add in VA and other long term veteran benefits, does approach 50% depending on what things you choose to label "military/defense".
You guys aren't that bad, you just can't compete with Europe or Asia (how should you? the US is quite bigger and harder to lay down fiber)
That argument needs to be put to rest. If New York City and Los Angeles do not have a fiber option, then the lack of fiber has nothing to do with population density.
What happens in a community when 50+% of the inhabitants are native Spanish speakers? Still force them to use English when they are the majority?
There is no Federal official language for the USA (is that the country you were referring to?). Each community decides how best to server its population. While some States list English as their official language, most services, like hospitals, will still support multiple languages if their community has significant diversity.
French is fading and being mixed against the cultural influence of English media. In 50 years, it will be the second language in Quebec.
This is what gets me about almost any "conservative" worldview. It is obvious that the society and culture are going to change over time, why fight it? Like gay marriage in the US. It is obvious that over time people that are against gay marriage will be the minority. And with even more time, the gay marriage "fight" will be written in history books as a civil rights fight that the 'good guys' won (the people fighting for equality regardless of sexual preference).
Language is even more fluid than social issues. All languages are constantly evolving. It seems to me that rather than fighting language change, Quebec would be better off identifying important cultural items, like traditional holidays, food, songs, etc.. and codifying those into law as the 'official X' of Quebec. Beyond that, there isn't much more you can do to preserve culture. Culture changes.
can you steer me to one of those datasets which shows an increase in temperature over the last 17 or so years?
Sure, as long as we can account for some very well known natural cycles and we are not only measuring air temperature.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2013/aug/25/steve-goreham/global-warming-skeptic-says-global-surface-tempera/
If I recall correctly, the RATE of increased warming has diminished to nearly flat due to multiple factors, however, the overall temperature is still going up (if you take Ocean warming into account). The reason the planet is still retaining an increasing amount of energy is attributed to GHG emission.
How about some consideration of alternatives to GHG reduction
I'm not following you.
Alternatives to GHG reduction? Like the cost of a geo-engineering solution to climate change instead of reducing C02 output? http://e360.yale.edu/feature/solar_geoengineering_weighing_costs_of_blocking_the_suns_rays/2727/ It is being talked about, but it is no where near as scientifically sound (or agreed upon) as just moving away from non-renewables.
There have been studies about the cost of re-locating the hundreds of millions of people that live along cost lines, as well as all the city infrastructure along low lying costs, and those costs are staggering. Of course, sea level rise is gradual, so we are talking about 50-100 years, but it will be costly nevertheless. Would we rather relocate all low level coastal cities in the next 100 years, or do some geo-engineering combined with swapping out non-renewable power sources over the next 100 years?
and forcing people to switch to renewables?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'forcing'. Wind energy where I live is already just as cheap as traditional power generation. I "switched" and I didn't even know it. The electric company was mandated by the legislature to meet renewable targets over the course of many decades. 10% (wind) and climbing here in Oregon. And the rate of change is slow enough that the electric companies are not having much difficulty reaching the targets.
Are you talking about forcing coal plants to shut down and the studying the cost of that? I am unaware of anyone studying such a thing, because as far as I know, no one has proposed it.
What I do know, is that if the external costs of coal/oil were included in their market prices (pollution, C02, foreign wars, etc..), people would be running for renewables.
The news always sensationalizes things. A smart person doesn't rely on the news to accurately report on anything even remotely related to science.
But ask yourself what other general areas of science, that enjoy broad scientific consensus, are constantly attacked in the media and other conservative outlets (news, radio, etc..)?
If we eliminate the far religious right stuff (creationism, etc..), and just focus on mainstream conservatives, I can't think of any other scientific areas with broad scientific support, except climate change, that are so challenged.
Do you see why so many people don't listen to those who are trying to push human-caused climate change?
So maybe it has nothing at all to do with the news cherry picking some sensational headlines. They do that all the time. Maybe it has more to do with a massive industrially financed propaganda campaign to smear climate science, that is relentless, and being pushed through all forms of media. Just like some of the very same PR agencies did when tobacco came under fire as a possible cause of cancer.