It is sort of unfair to nail MS too much for IE. The big problem was javascript and really javascript is still a big problem.
I use noscript myself with firefox and whenever I turn it off the absolute garbage that spews onto my pages is amazing. They are nesting one script inside of another inside of another. And it is mostly ads and social network crap.
Look, I'm okay with ads. But the ads need to be DUMB ads. That is, no scripting. You want to put a banner ad with two chicks getting mounted by a water buffalo? I'm actually fine with that. I don't even see it. What kills me is the scripts. That includes the popups and all that crap.
I also refuse to deal with Flash or any kind of non-gif animation unless I personally press PLAY on the video. If I don't press play... do not even begin to download that animation or movie or stream. Absolutely not.
And because of crap like that, I have to micromanage the loading of every page using various tools to keep the various bits of shit from loading every time I go to those pages.
Again, no problem with ads. Have ads. That's fine. But tracking cookies will be rejected, scripts will not be run, and flash animations of any kind will only be launched at my personal discretion.
MS made no effort to control this shit and as a result people hate IE. That is mostly what happened.
Every time you saw some poor bastard using IE he'd have 100 little programs in his tool bar eating up 90 percent of his screen along with endless pop up swatting. And MS really didn't do anything about it.
So your argument is that the protagonist in the story is a small minded coward? Exactly how?
You say he chose that life but he was living in an extremely repressive society. He didn't have freedom unless he wanted be a rogue heating repair technician or whatever the fuck Robert was doing.
And in any case, none of that has anything contextually to do with our discussion. You're implying that my requirement that you be RATIONAL is a sign that I am an unwitting pawn of some repressive officious super state?
Really? When did being rational be the same thing as a fascist?... Just insert... I don't know what to tell you, sport. Expecting someone to be rational in a discussion is not an imposition on you. You should just do that. How can you possibly have a rational thought if your whole mind is little more than a Gordian knot of fallacies?
You can't. You're basically willfully insane if you don't make any effort to make any kind of logical sense.
""A few days ago, in Cairo, Bolden told Al Jazeera that when he became the NASA administrator, President Obama charged him with three things""
Three things he was charged to do when he became head of NASA.
What are those three things?
1. One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math.
2. he wanted me to expand our international relationships
3. third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and engineering â" science, math and engineering.
Now you say "no where does it say those were his top priorities, however, those were the three things the president asked him to do when he took over the post.
YOUR argument rests on the assumption that the first things YOUR BOSS tells you to do when you are given a job are not top priorities?
You are apparently under the impression that the current administration cares about the law.
They're outright doing their best to bypass congress in everything which is against not only the letter of MANY laws but is also against the sprint of the nation's whole principle.
So... why would you think your law was something they cared about when they clearly don't even care about the constitution?
Then when NASA said their mission was muslim outreach, that was totally normal.
In any case, all you're saying is that politicizing the institution is okay.
Fine. Tammany Hall it is then. The next administration will just purge the institutions of people not loyal to his administration... and then the one after that will do the same thing. And the institutions will swing back and forth here after.
Happy?
Good. That is what you're going to get. Good and hard.
I'm not saying it is right. I think it is wrong of course.
The issue is that it will take biparstain support to fix it. Both parties are going to have to realize that the greater good is in letting go and having the various institutions do their jobs rather then be tools for the political games the administration of the moment is playing.
Democrats are going to be pissed at me here, but even many of your own people have realized that Obama is pushing the power of his executive orders to the limit. The border patrol is outright complaining about the nonsense they're being told to do by the administration in contravention of their actual legal guidelines.
JUST ONE example. And I'm not saying republicans don't do this crap too. But Obama is doing it to a greater extent than any president I can think of with the possible exception of FDR... and that guy literally threatened the Supreme Court that if they didn't approve what he wanted, he'd appoint more people to the court until by simple numbers his view over ruled them.
So... not great company to be in really unless you want to go fight WW2 again.
Point is, the system is so heavily politicized at this point that you can't cry foul anymore unless you're advocating for systematic reform.
You can't just point at ONE thing someone does and say "that's wrong" because its ALL WRONG. The whole system is terminally fucked up and it is getting much worse much faster than it ever has before.
Is Ted Cruz a dick for saying NASA is being used to push global warming stuff? No more so than Obama is a dick for making global warming NASA's number one priority. What exactly does that have to do with space exploration?
And here someone will say "but nasa has the ability to launch weather sats!"... Which has nothing to do with anything because NASA could launch them while another department actually monitors that data.
In which case, if Ted Cruz went after anything, he'd go after that institution rather then NASA.
Again... there are no virgins here. Everyone is compromised. Everything is corrupted. Bitching about one thing without going for systematic reform is just going to serve as a tool for the other side to gain an advantage.
Neither side is pure here. I think NASA briefly said their mission was muslim outreach for example. Why would they do that? Does that have something to do with space?
Just politics.
And NASA has been staffed not just with scientists but wtih scientists that are big democrat supporters. So... guess what, the republicans are going to want to suppress them.
Same thing happened in NYC with tammany hall. Every time parties would switch, the new party would staff the city institutions with political appointees that supported that political party. Everything. Fire departments, police departments, park service, road workers, etc... just everything. Parties would switch and everyone in authority in the city would lose their job.
And that meant that in part the people that did things were often not competent because they weren't on the job that long. And also you'd get a lot of corruption because if lots of people lose their jobs when the parties switch everyone is more inclined to cheat or stuff ballot boxes.
This was ultimately dealt with to some extent by protecting certain institutions from being used that way.
But there is no such protection in Federal agencies. They get used all the time. You can't tell me that the EPA or the ATF or whatever are doing the same thing under a democrat that they'd be doing under a republican. You can't tell me that they're being run by the same sorts of people or under the same guidelines.
It swings back and forth because all these institutions are political footballs at this point.
So complain about it if you want but nothing is going to change unless that stops. And it needs to stop for BOTH sides. Not just the side you don't like. If one side can do it, then the other side can do it.
So think very carefully about what you're asking for and understand there are going to be consequences.
Lots of ideas sound stupid until someone has worked out the details.
Given that no one has designed such a system, you're within your rights to point out that no such system exists. However, I can point out that similarly impossible seeming things have been invented over the years to resolve similar problems.
I'll again point you to the 7 minutes of terror youtube video that JPL put out.
Saying the only solution is apollo style rockets is presumptuous on your part. You presume to know everything that someone else might think of or come up with.
I don't know if my drag cable idea is any good. Maybe it is crap. I pulled it out of my ass. But the thing is that if you put some very clever people in a room with a problem and some funding so they can do some experiments... incredible things frequently happen.
Maybe my cable idea is bad. But that doesn't mean your notion that you can only use rockets is right either.
You've never built a robot that is a fraction of the complexity of a cockroach.
I'm not talking about the sophistication of its body... I'm talking entirely about its mind.
You can make something that acts like a cockroach in that it appears to be one. But you've produced a cockroach mind about as much as one of those Chatbots could ACTUALLY pass as human.
It is a magic trick. You've created something with a seeming of the same intelligence.
I'm not claiming cockroaches are intelligent by our standard. I'm claiming that there are no robots with cockroach level intelligence.
Much less mouse intelligence Much less dog intelligence Much less chimp intelligence Much less human intelligence
The people that are working on AI are going to come at this from two directions.
1. Expert systems that are not designed to be intelligent so much as do a complex and dynamic task well. Industry, the government, the military, etc will make heavy use of these.
2. Evolutionary machine intelligence. We need to start with a reasonable goal. Designing a cockroach intelligence is something we could probably manage right now if we made a point of actually talking to entomologists and understanding the complex nature of their existence. It is not as simple as they appear when you've got them in a jar. A lot of the impression of what a cockroach is like is limited by the way that most people interact with them. They are possibly vermin in your home on occasion... the thing that scuttles under your frig? or they're a bug in a jar.
They're behavior is more complicated.
Consider the humble ant. Ants are individually more simplistic then cockroaches. Can you think of a robot that could do the job of even ONE ant? Never happened.
Trying to create a human level AI when we can't even make a cockroach AI is absurd.
Okay, so you don't know how community service works.
Let me explain it.
You don't have to do it all at once. You can do it for a few hours every week. Such as on your day off. Does the guy at McDonalds work 7 days a week at McDonalds? No he doesn't. Neither does the guy the other guy.
Ergo you don't need to take days off at all. At all. You tell the guy what days you can do a week and they schedule you.
What happens if your boss calls and says "I need you to work on your off day because some other guy got sick." Does that mean the police haul you in because you missed a day of community service? No. It means at the very least that you won't get credit for the time you would have done community service that day. And in all likelihood that would be it.
So long as you're showing good faith to do the community service they really don't care. Worst case, they might add hours to your sentence. But given that your boss isn't going to be constantly asking you to do that it isn't a big deal. And really, it isn't terribly likely they'll punish you unless the guy is a dick or you've been not taking it seriously prior to that.
As to financing the police with traffic fines, that is what happens when you turn law enforcement into revenue source.
The ONLY way to stop this is to make law enforcement have no correlation with revenue generation.
Yeah, I like to make donations closer to home and I like to see immediate results from the money donated. if it just goes off into some big fund then I question how much of it actually goes where it is supposed to go.
Well, the problem with your position is that there is contradictory information. And the forbes information that you're standing behind is 100 percent in line with the Russian state media.
So do you want to actually talk about this like adults or is childish insults where you want to end this?
The problem with this concept is that it increasingly associates law enforcement with revenue. That's unacceptable.
All the fines need to have some non-monitary alternative. So many hours of community service for example. Everyone's time is of equal value to THEM. I only have so many hours in my life and until the billionaires make themselves immortal they're going to be under the same limitations.
This way, if the government starts getting rediculious with the fines, people can fight back by just doing community service instead. That will encourage the police to keep the fines low enough that they don't encourage too many people to take the community service option.
Now, the other nasty thing they could do is set the number of community service hours to something insane. Parking ticket? 2 million community service hours or 100 dollars. So there needs to be some association there between the dollar fine and the hours. Possibly set it as some ratio of the minimum wage prior to income multipliers.
It couldn't possibly respond as such unless this literal same situation came up. And even then, I would come up with a different non sequitor. The point is to have one there. Your mind file isn't going to do that properly.
I can't speak for the rest of humanity, but I'm more complex than some fucking script.
In my opinion the problem with AI design is that they keep trying to design the mind from the outside in. That's not how that is supposed to work.
Make a cockroach AI first. Something simple but dynamic within its limitations.
Then try to step up to a mouse. Then maybe step up to a dog
Then try something closer to a chimp... then all the way to a human.
Trying to make an AI that just talks is just going to be some stupid puppet. You need an AI that first and foremost is a dynamic problem solver.
Think of the problems cockroaches solve. They do solve them. They look for food. They avoid danger. They try to stay where it is warm. They try to stay where it is wet. They look for mates, etc.
And they do all that in a real world environment entirely dynamically.
If you can emulate that, then you have an AI. Its not especially clever but it can solve real problems in the real world.
Then just step it up. Increase the complexity of what the AI has to deal with... consider evolutionary development protocols where you progressively raise the bar and then have to redesign the AI to meet new standards while retaining old capabilities.
Build the AI like an onion. Having entirely separate processing centers is reasonable. The brain works in much that way. Various parts of the brain handle different priorities and responsibilities. They specialize. So maybe at the core of your human AI is your first cockroach brain. But with layers added on to it until it is a quite intelligent rational AI.
So first, no attempt to back up any of your shit or justify your insults... just more dumb insults? Okay.
All the posts here by everyone are ultimately masturbatory. So you win idiot points from that comment alone.
As to being a bureaucrat... I don't know where that came from... I assume you're reacting to my insistence on process. For the record, I do that when someone starts trying to flimflam me with a lot of sophistry. It is just a really easy way to remove sophistry from a discussion. Sophistry tends to rely on mislabeling things or pretending that a step in a thought process is one thing when it is really another. By forcing people practicing sophistry to actually spell their bullshit out... it tends to always collapse or at the very least you can really obviously see the logically fallacies that hold their particular line of bullshit together. So, that is less something that I always insist on rather then a basic counter to sophistry in general.
Don't try to pass a lot of fallacious logic off on me and I won't start picking it apart with tweezers.
The anchor would probably have to have sensors in it that caused it to change shape very rapidly so that it could dynamically change its shape to match what it needs to be when it hits the surface. And the surface of the moon is not perfectly flat. The anchor might have to change shape very rapidly to compensate for surface distortions.
Ideally you'd want the anchor submerged in the moon dust just so you could use control fins on it to control depth and angle. But if that is totally impossible with current materials science then you should be able to drag along the surface.
If that is all unworkable then at the very least you should be able to set up an arrest cable system on the moon if you were doing regular flights back and forth. Near the moon base, you set up a reinforced cable that a space craft can hook with a cable and then they're slowed down by an arrest cable system.
The system could even make use of several cable arresting paths. You link up with one, it slows you down a bit, you link with another, you slow down a bit more, you link with the next one and you're now traveling at a more reasonable speed.
The need for everything to work just "so" or you're screwed is sort of a given in space travel to begin with.
As to the mass of the cable... ideally you'd want the damn thing to be as light as possible. It would also obviously have a portion that was just a cable and then sort of an anchor bit that actually touched the lunar surface. As to getting it to actually touch the surface, I don't see why that would be a problem. Obviously there is less gravity to hold the anchor against the moon so it would be more inclined to fly off the surface, but if you landed it correctly and the shape of the anchor and cable were such that it would whip back onto the surface. It should be fine.
The idea here is to generate about as much friction as a big parachute would.
Another idea would be some kind of assist cable like the kind that aircraft carriers use. Obviously... redesigned for the environment.
Point is that if you were bouncing things between the moon and the earth you'd come up with a solution.
Slashdot Mirror
It is sort of unfair to nail MS too much for IE. The big problem was javascript and really javascript is still a big problem.
I use noscript myself with firefox and whenever I turn it off the absolute garbage that spews onto my pages is amazing. They are nesting one script inside of another inside of another. And it is mostly ads and social network crap.
Look, I'm okay with ads. But the ads need to be DUMB ads. That is, no scripting. You want to put a banner ad with two chicks getting mounted by a water buffalo? I'm actually fine with that. I don't even see it. What kills me is the scripts. That includes the popups and all that crap.
I also refuse to deal with Flash or any kind of non-gif animation unless I personally press PLAY on the video. If I don't press play... do not even begin to download that animation or movie or stream. Absolutely not.
And because of crap like that, I have to micromanage the loading of every page using various tools to keep the various bits of shit from loading every time I go to those pages.
Again, no problem with ads. Have ads. That's fine. But tracking cookies will be rejected, scripts will not be run, and flash animations of any kind will only be launched at my personal discretion.
MS made no effort to control this shit and as a result people hate IE. That is mostly what happened.
Every time you saw some poor bastard using IE he'd have 100 little programs in his tool bar eating up 90 percent of his screen along with endless pop up swatting. And MS really didn't do anything about it.
THAT was the mistake. Fix THAT.
So your argument is that the protagonist in the story is a small minded coward? Exactly how?
You say he chose that life but he was living in an extremely repressive society. He didn't have freedom unless he wanted be a rogue heating repair technician or whatever the fuck Robert was doing.
And in any case, none of that has anything contextually to do with our discussion. You're implying that my requirement that you be RATIONAL is a sign that I am an unwitting pawn of some repressive officious super state?
Really? When did being rational be the same thing as a fascist? ... Just insert ... I don't know what to tell you, sport. Expecting someone to be rational in a discussion is not an imposition on you. You should just do that. How can you possibly have a rational thought if your whole mind is little more than a Gordian knot of fallacies?
You can't. You're basically willfully insane if you don't make any effort to make any kind of logical sense.
No, you read again, fucktard.
""A few days ago, in Cairo, Bolden told Al Jazeera that when he became the NASA administrator, President Obama charged him with three things""
Three things he was charged to do when he became head of NASA.
What are those three things?
1. One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math.
2. he wanted me to expand our international relationships
3. third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and engineering â" science, math and engineering.
Now you say "no where does it say those were his top priorities, however, those were the three things the president asked him to do when he took over the post.
YOUR argument rests on the assumption that the first things YOUR BOSS tells you to do when you are given a job are not top priorities?
You are a fucking idiot.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po...
Actually it did.
Apologize.
Harumph!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You're right, its not possible for federal agencies to be compromised by political interests. Sorry for saying such a stupid thing.
Of course that just can't happen. Because some law... totally over whelms any other force. Obviously.
Harumph!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
am I right guys?
Privatization is the only way out of it.
You are apparently under the impression that the current administration cares about the law.
They're outright doing their best to bypass congress in everything which is against not only the letter of MANY laws but is also against the sprint of the nation's whole principle.
So... why would you think your law was something they cared about when they clearly don't even care about the constitution?
how is that an insult? Sam was an every man trapped in an insane world.
You're saying I'm an everyman? This is an insult to you?
Then when NASA said their mission was muslim outreach, that was totally normal.
In any case, all you're saying is that politicizing the institution is okay.
Fine. Tammany Hall it is then. The next administration will just purge the institutions of people not loyal to his administration... and then the one after that will do the same thing. And the institutions will swing back and forth here after.
Happy?
Good. That is what you're going to get. Good and hard.
I'm not saying it is right. I think it is wrong of course.
The issue is that it will take biparstain support to fix it. Both parties are going to have to realize that the greater good is in letting go and having the various institutions do their jobs rather then be tools for the political games the administration of the moment is playing.
Democrats are going to be pissed at me here, but even many of your own people have realized that Obama is pushing the power of his executive orders to the limit. The border patrol is outright complaining about the nonsense they're being told to do by the administration in contravention of their actual legal guidelines.
JUST ONE example. And I'm not saying republicans don't do this crap too. But Obama is doing it to a greater extent than any president I can think of with the possible exception of FDR... and that guy literally threatened the Supreme Court that if they didn't approve what he wanted, he'd appoint more people to the court until by simple numbers his view over ruled them.
So... not great company to be in really unless you want to go fight WW2 again.
Point is, the system is so heavily politicized at this point that you can't cry foul anymore unless you're advocating for systematic reform.
You can't just point at ONE thing someone does and say "that's wrong" because its ALL WRONG. The whole system is terminally fucked up and it is getting much worse much faster than it ever has before.
Is Ted Cruz a dick for saying NASA is being used to push global warming stuff? No more so than Obama is a dick for making global warming NASA's number one priority. What exactly does that have to do with space exploration?
And here someone will say "but nasa has the ability to launch weather sats!"... Which has nothing to do with anything because NASA could launch them while another department actually monitors that data.
In which case, if Ted Cruz went after anything, he'd go after that institution rather then NASA.
Again... there are no virgins here. Everyone is compromised. Everything is corrupted. Bitching about one thing without going for systematic reform is just going to serve as a tool for the other side to gain an advantage.
Neither side is pure here. I think NASA briefly said their mission was muslim outreach for example. Why would they do that? Does that have something to do with space?
Just politics.
And NASA has been staffed not just with scientists but wtih scientists that are big democrat supporters. So... guess what, the republicans are going to want to suppress them.
Same thing happened in NYC with tammany hall. Every time parties would switch, the new party would staff the city institutions with political appointees that supported that political party. Everything. Fire departments, police departments, park service, road workers, etc... just everything. Parties would switch and everyone in authority in the city would lose their job.
And that meant that in part the people that did things were often not competent because they weren't on the job that long. And also you'd get a lot of corruption because if lots of people lose their jobs when the parties switch everyone is more inclined to cheat or stuff ballot boxes.
This was ultimately dealt with to some extent by protecting certain institutions from being used that way.
But there is no such protection in Federal agencies. They get used all the time. You can't tell me that the EPA or the ATF or whatever are doing the same thing under a democrat that they'd be doing under a republican. You can't tell me that they're being run by the same sorts of people or under the same guidelines.
It swings back and forth because all these institutions are political footballs at this point.
So complain about it if you want but nothing is going to change unless that stops. And it needs to stop for BOTH sides. Not just the side you don't like. If one side can do it, then the other side can do it.
So think very carefully about what you're asking for and understand there are going to be consequences.
Lots of ideas sound stupid until someone has worked out the details.
Given that no one has designed such a system, you're within your rights to point out that no such system exists. However, I can point out that similarly impossible seeming things have been invented over the years to resolve similar problems.
I'll again point you to the 7 minutes of terror youtube video that JPL put out.
Saying the only solution is apollo style rockets is presumptuous on your part. You presume to know everything that someone else might think of or come up with.
I don't know if my drag cable idea is any good. Maybe it is crap. I pulled it out of my ass. But the thing is that if you put some very clever people in a room with a problem and some funding so they can do some experiments... incredible things frequently happen.
Maybe my cable idea is bad. But that doesn't mean your notion that you can only use rockets is right either.
You've never built a robot that is a fraction of the complexity of a cockroach.
I'm not talking about the sophistication of its body... I'm talking entirely about its mind.
You can make something that acts like a cockroach in that it appears to be one. But you've produced a cockroach mind about as much as one of those Chatbots could ACTUALLY pass as human.
It is a magic trick. You've created something with a seeming of the same intelligence.
I'm not claiming cockroaches are intelligent by our standard. I'm claiming that there are no robots with cockroach level intelligence.
Much less mouse intelligence
Much less dog intelligence
Much less chimp intelligence
Much less human intelligence
The people that are working on AI are going to come at this from two directions.
1. Expert systems that are not designed to be intelligent so much as do a complex and dynamic task well. Industry, the government, the military, etc will make heavy use of these.
2. Evolutionary machine intelligence. We need to start with a reasonable goal. Designing a cockroach intelligence is something we could probably manage right now if we made a point of actually talking to entomologists and understanding the complex nature of their existence. It is not as simple as they appear when you've got them in a jar. A lot of the impression of what a cockroach is like is limited by the way that most people interact with them. They are possibly vermin in your home on occasion... the thing that scuttles under your frig? or they're a bug in a jar.
They're behavior is more complicated.
Consider the humble ant. Ants are individually more simplistic then cockroaches. Can you think of a robot that could do the job of even ONE ant? Never happened.
Trying to create a human level AI when we can't even make a cockroach AI is absurd.
Okay, so you don't know how community service works.
Let me explain it.
You don't have to do it all at once. You can do it for a few hours every week. Such as on your day off. Does the guy at McDonalds work 7 days a week at McDonalds? No he doesn't. Neither does the guy the other guy.
Ergo you don't need to take days off at all. At all. You tell the guy what days you can do a week and they schedule you.
What happens if your boss calls and says "I need you to work on your off day because some other guy got sick." Does that mean the police haul you in because you missed a day of community service? No. It means at the very least that you won't get credit for the time you would have done community service that day. And in all likelihood that would be it.
So long as you're showing good faith to do the community service they really don't care. Worst case, they might add hours to your sentence. But given that your boss isn't going to be constantly asking you to do that it isn't a big deal. And really, it isn't terribly likely they'll punish you unless the guy is a dick or you've been not taking it seriously prior to that.
As to financing the police with traffic fines, that is what happens when you turn law enforcement into revenue source.
The ONLY way to stop this is to make law enforcement have no correlation with revenue generation.
So... thanks for agreeing with me.
Yeah, I like to make donations closer to home and I like to see immediate results from the money donated. if it just goes off into some big fund then I question how much of it actually goes where it is supposed to go.
Well, the problem with your position is that there is contradictory information. And the forbes information that you're standing behind is 100 percent in line with the Russian state media.
So do you want to actually talk about this like adults or is childish insults where you want to end this?
Your choice.
The problem with this concept is that it increasingly associates law enforcement with revenue. That's unacceptable.
All the fines need to have some non-monitary alternative. So many hours of community service for example. Everyone's time is of equal value to THEM. I only have so many hours in my life and until the billionaires make themselves immortal they're going to be under the same limitations.
This way, if the government starts getting rediculious with the fines, people can fight back by just doing community service instead. That will encourage the police to keep the fines low enough that they don't encourage too many people to take the community service option.
Now, the other nasty thing they could do is set the number of community service hours to something insane. Parking ticket? 2 million community service hours or 100 dollars. So there needs to be some association there between the dollar fine and the hours. Possibly set it as some ratio of the minimum wage prior to income multipliers.
It couldn't possibly respond as such unless this literal same situation came up. And even then, I would come up with a different non sequitor. The point is to have one there. Your mind file isn't going to do that properly.
I can't speak for the rest of humanity, but I'm more complex than some fucking script.
In my opinion the problem with AI design is that they keep trying to design the mind from the outside in. That's not how that is supposed to work.
Make a cockroach AI first. Something simple but dynamic within its limitations.
Then try to step up to a mouse. Then maybe step up to a dog
Then try something closer to a chimp... then all the way to a human.
Trying to make an AI that just talks is just going to be some stupid puppet. You need an AI that first and foremost is a dynamic problem solver.
Think of the problems cockroaches solve. They do solve them. They look for food. They avoid danger. They try to stay where it is warm. They try to stay where it is wet. They look for mates, etc.
And they do all that in a real world environment entirely dynamically.
If you can emulate that, then you have an AI. Its not especially clever but it can solve real problems in the real world.
Then just step it up. Increase the complexity of what the AI has to deal with... consider evolutionary development protocols where you progressively raise the bar and then have to redesign the AI to meet new standards while retaining old capabilities.
Build the AI like an onion. Having entirely separate processing centers is reasonable. The brain works in much that way. Various parts of the brain handle different priorities and responsibilities. They specialize. So maybe at the core of your human AI is your first cockroach brain. But with layers added on to it until it is a quite intelligent rational AI.
So first, no attempt to back up any of your shit or justify your insults... just more dumb insults? Okay.
All the posts here by everyone are ultimately masturbatory. So you win idiot points from that comment alone.
As to being a bureaucrat... I don't know where that came from... I assume you're reacting to my insistence on process. For the record, I do that when someone starts trying to flimflam me with a lot of sophistry. It is just a really easy way to remove sophistry from a discussion. Sophistry tends to rely on mislabeling things or pretending that a step in a thought process is one thing when it is really another. By forcing people practicing sophistry to actually spell their bullshit out... it tends to always collapse or at the very least you can really obviously see the logically fallacies that hold their particular line of bullshit together. So, that is less something that I always insist on rather then a basic counter to sophistry in general.
Don't try to pass a lot of fallacious logic off on me and I won't start picking it apart with tweezers.
This undermines my position in any way? Sorry, I'm very goal oriented.
Its all about the angle of contact.
The anchor would probably have to have sensors in it that caused it to change shape very rapidly so that it could dynamically change its shape to match what it needs to be when it hits the surface. And the surface of the moon is not perfectly flat. The anchor might have to change shape very rapidly to compensate for surface distortions.
Ideally you'd want the anchor submerged in the moon dust just so you could use control fins on it to control depth and angle. But if that is totally impossible with current materials science then you should be able to drag along the surface.
If that is all unworkable then at the very least you should be able to set up an arrest cable system on the moon if you were doing regular flights back and forth. Near the moon base, you set up a reinforced cable that a space craft can hook with a cable and then they're slowed down by an arrest cable system.
The system could even make use of several cable arresting paths. You link up with one, it slows you down a bit, you link with another, you slow down a bit more, you link with the next one and you're now traveling at a more reasonable speed.
The need for everything to work just "so" or you're screwed is sort of a given in space travel to begin with.
As to the mass of the cable... ideally you'd want the damn thing to be as light as possible. It would also obviously have a portion that was just a cable and then sort of an anchor bit that actually touched the lunar surface. As to getting it to actually touch the surface, I don't see why that would be a problem. Obviously there is less gravity to hold the anchor against the moon so it would be more inclined to fly off the surface, but if you landed it correctly and the shape of the anchor and cable were such that it would whip back onto the surface. It should be fine.
The idea here is to generate about as much friction as a big parachute would.
Another idea would be some kind of assist cable like the kind that aircraft carriers use. Obviously... redesigned for the environment.
Point is that if you were bouncing things between the moon and the earth you'd come up with a solution.