Always the same story. Correlation does not equal causation, especially not in extremely complex environments such as diets.
Better research would be to tell people to start skipping breakfast, or -- if they already skip it -- to start eating one, and see what happens to these people.
Ideally, each rescue boat should have a ratio of ten women for each man.
It is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious...service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
There is no correct answer. In the end, it's about how we feel about it. Depending on the exact circumstances, people will have different feelings.
Most people feel fine when cows and pigs are slaughtered for our meat, but would strongly object to doing the same for cats and dogs.
If the AI gets to a point where people get similar feelings as to their pets, they'll strongly object to killing it, and they will introduce laws that make it illegal to do so.
Now the argument over, "is it a person" is dramatically changed.
The argument was never "is it a person?". The argument has always been "do we care?". The problem is that we don't want to be called callous, so we wrap our feelings in a layer of obfuscations. Because our feelings aren't going to change, a new approach to consciousness isn't going to change anything, let alone dramatically. We'll simply modify our expressed reason for staying with the same outcome.
coupled with "and I am one of the few that can do something about it... for a proper compensation, of course".
Except that the many scientists who do stuff like measuring tree rings, or digging up ice cores in Antarctica are not the people claiming they are "one of the few that can do something about it". All they do is a signal a potential problem.
The contractor on your roof installing solar panels is actually a small part of a solution, but he's not getting rich either, nor is he in a position to direct the scientists.
The calorie is a calorie experts are always advocating that one way of losing weight is to eat less
And you can beat the Yankees by scoring more points than them.
The question is now what, but how ? In order to successfully eat less, you have to reduce your appetite. Many people have success with low carb diets, because they reduce their appetite.
Have you ever been on a low carb, high-protein diet and tried to run five miles?
You shouldn't be on a high protein diet. Protein is a lousy fuel. Try a low carb, high fat diet instead, and give your muscles about 3 weeks to adapt. Plenty of high performance athletes do very well on a low carb diet, especially on endurance type events where a carb-burning athlete would deplete their glycogen stores.
Glucose is poisonous in high concentrations. Since there's only 5 grams of glucose in your blood, and there's 15 grams of glucose in a soft drink, and the glucose from a drink quickly enters the bloodstream, it's very easy to get a high concentration of glucose in the blood where it will have damaging effects.
Your brain only *needs* about 25 grams of glucose in a day.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and in the northern regions, forget about citrus fruits, so enjoy your scurvy from time to time.
There's plenty of vitamin C in other things, including raw meat.
So dying with 30-35 is perfectly fine
Not at all. It's very beneficial for a tribe to have elders with experience.
Always the same story. Correlation does not equal causation, especially not in extremely complex environments such as diets.
Better research would be to tell people to start skipping breakfast, or -- if they already skip it -- to start eating one, and see what happens to these people.
Ideally, each rescue boat should have a ratio of ten women for each man.
It is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious...service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
The countries I'm aware of that don't care for cows to be slaughtered for meat have larger populations than DOUBLE the US & Eu combined
I wasn't talking about those countries. But that only proves my point that the borders are arbitrary.
Wouldn’t stopping the AI amount to murder?
There is no correct answer. In the end, it's about how we feel about it. Depending on the exact circumstances, people will have different feelings.
Most people feel fine when cows and pigs are slaughtered for our meat, but would strongly object to doing the same for cats and dogs.
If the AI gets to a point where people get similar feelings as to their pets, they'll strongly object to killing it, and they will introduce laws that make it illegal to do so.
You're delusional. Just thought you should know.
Objects can make decisions too. Even a 1980's chess computer decides which move to play. Modern autonomous cars make hundreds of decisions per second.
The problem with this definition is that inanimate matter suddenly becomes conscious as well.
Define "inanimate matter"
Now the argument over, "is it a person" is dramatically changed.
The argument was never "is it a person?". The argument has always been "do we care?". The problem is that we don't want to be called callous, so we wrap our feelings in a layer of obfuscations. Because our feelings aren't going to change, a new approach to consciousness isn't going to change anything, let alone dramatically. We'll simply modify our expressed reason for staying with the same outcome.
Worse... its a commodity that has no utility
Digital and decentralized transfer of value is not utility ?
merely that waiting to buy might be prudent and even at $3,400 we might still be at an overly enthusiastic level.
Then again, maybe not. Nobody knows.
Which means a huge market will open up as these problems are fixed.
Horses have at least been around for a long time. This 'automobile' is just a fad.
coupled with "and I am one of the few that can do something about it... for a proper compensation, of course".
Except that the many scientists who do stuff like measuring tree rings, or digging up ice cores in Antarctica are not the people claiming they are "one of the few that can do something about it". All they do is a signal a potential problem.
The contractor on your roof installing solar panels is actually a small part of a solution, but he's not getting rich either, nor is he in a position to direct the scientists.
You misquoted me. On purpose, I assume.
> 40% of NASA's budget was going to global warming research
Where did you get that number, by the way ?
I can't really find it in their 2016 budget. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def...
I don't think $10 billion is all that much compared to potential effects on our future. It's certainly not making anybody rich.
The cycles aren't regular, though. It's perfectly possible for an El Nino to come back at any time. We are currently in a neutral zone.
The calorie is a calorie experts are always advocating that one way of losing weight is to eat less
And you can beat the Yankees by scoring more points than them.
The question is now what, but how ? In order to successfully eat less, you have to reduce your appetite. Many people have success with low carb diets, because they reduce their appetite.
Have you ever been on a low carb, high-protein diet and tried to run five miles?
You shouldn't be on a high protein diet. Protein is a lousy fuel. Try a low carb, high fat diet instead, and give your muscles about 3 weeks to adapt. Plenty of high performance athletes do very well on a low carb diet, especially on endurance type events where a carb-burning athlete would deplete their glycogen stores.
Glucose is poisonous in high concentrations. Since there's only 5 grams of glucose in your blood, and there's 15 grams of glucose in a soft drink, and the glucose from a drink quickly enters the bloodstream, it's very easy to get a high concentration of glucose in the blood where it will have damaging effects.
Your brain only *needs* about 25 grams of glucose in a day.
It's a lot easier to consume 100 grams of sugar from soft drinks than it is to eat the same amount from pears or mangoes.
Except that most cells in your body can run on glucose, but not on fructose.
So how much salary should I pay the robot that cleans my dishes ?
What would a robot do with a salary ? Go home in the weekend and spend it on coke and hookers ?