Even my hero, Feynman, worked on the atomic bomb. You can't get away from the fact that he helped kill two cities, and yet he was such a great bloke. He was told he was in a race against the nazis getting the bomb first, he didn't know it would be used against civilians in order to secure an unconditionnal surrender in japan.
From his POV, he wasn't doing anything wrong. If someone uses a sculpture to bash a man on the head, it doesn't make the artist a bad person, even if that sculpture was just the perfect shape and weight to kill. You have to consider intent.
Where's the corruption in science besides when the government pays scientists to give them the desired bias in their research? Honest question, I just have no idea.
When corporations use NDAs to suppress findings that threaten their business model.
The scientists of the Big Tobacco corporations knew long ago just how toxic their products were, but they didn't publish those findings. That way the corps got to keep raking in the cash, while thousands of families lost their loved ones early to an incredibly painful and quite avoidable ailment.
You seem to suffer from an ideological position that governments are always bad, and private enterprises are always good. Please adjust your world view to mesh with reality: Governments do good and bad, and so do private endeavours.
Vitamin D is produced by the skin in response to certain wavelengths of ultraviolet light, and as such is not a true vitamin (since vitamins are substances we can't naturally produce -- it's a hormone).
What's your take on vitamin K (which "we" produce through our intestinal flora)? Izzat not a "true" vitamin either? Just curious, since I figured it stood for vital amine, not for "can't be produced by us"... that would sortof make a lot of other things vitamins (salt, for starters).
Actually all the studies that address "too much" involved sever sunburns in teen years. There is no peer reviewed study that suggests normal exposure to sun imposes a high mortality.
Yet the press, over-reacting as usual, have scared people out of the sun and created a sunscreen industry overnight by failing to actually read the studies that were done.
I don't normally defend Big Media, but in this case they were reading press releases from the dermatologists, whom I suspect had previously bought a number pof shares in that industry.
The reporters were acting in good faith on the authority of doctors.
if google is smart, they will remain focused on their core competency, and not get distracted with secondary pursuits, and have their entire relevancy stolen from them from under their feet. but the thing is, google is human endeavour. all human endeavours make mistake and fade Well, the Gilette company has been chugging along for more than a few decades, and last time I checked, they were in charge of most of my face-related purchases (they own Braun).
So if Google focuses of searchs the way Gilette focused on male faces, they should keep on ticking.
MySpace, though, is the anti-thesis of government. It's about freedom. People don't necessarily realize that, but that's the end result from allowing people to freely communicate, gather and entertain. I got news for you: Murdochs' politics are applied to MySpace.
When 9iu11ani was still running as Fox News' annointed candidate, Ron Paul pages on MySpace would quietly disappear. That's what you get for ruining a perfectly good hysteria-based nomination process, I guess.
N00b alert. Just what is the point of using MySpace or Facebook?
Facebook is very useful for organizing social events. You make a page for the event, invite all your friends, they RSVP, and all relevant info can be on the events' page.
MySpace is good for bands, they can put up samples of their music, the tour dates, but I find personal pages to be huge wastes of electrons.
asshole asswipe Yup, making the species real proud there, crippy. Your mind seems as functional as your limbs. Good thing for you that worthwhile organisms made rolling machines to replace your legs, and word processing machines to replace your brain.
Wastes of skin like you must be happy you're not thrown off a cliff, as you ought to. But we real people sure could do without your kind.
So maybe he did have a point with that quote about divided minds. If he had devoted more of his efforts to, I don't know, engineering, instead of dabbling into where salamanders come from, I'm sure he would have had a bigger return from that investment. Who knows how many more inventions of pure genius we would have had in that case? You do know that most of his work was lost, or purposefully destroyed?
And it was believed at the time that salamanders came from fire (hence charmander in pokemons, no kidding), I've never heard of Leonardo writing about it though, but that wasn't an idea of his, that was something he had been told.
I think Leo had ADD, he's got the classic sign: Starts something, gets halfway done and then starts two other things, rinse, repeat.
Seems to be the same with classifying animals as intelligent. People come up with a definition of what separates humans from other animals, and then we see that trait demonstrated in animals, and then they just go and raise the bar, or some up with something else. Language skills, tool use, emotion and sympathy for others. All these thing have been shown to exist in animals. What really makes us different from animals? Hubris.
People like to think of themselves as separate from the animals because they have egos greater than their intelligence. We eat, excrete, bleed and die like all other animals, animals fear, love and get bored like us.
We're clever monkies, plain as day, and some people are just WAY too full of themselves to admit it. So they keep making up ridiculous reasons why they are better than animals, why their country is better than others, etc. They aren't.
When any particular subset of what we do with our brains (chess, machine vision, speech recognition, what have you) yields to research and produces commercial applications, the critics of A.I. redraw the line and that domain is no longer part of "A.I." As this continues, the problem space still considered part of "artificial intelligence" will get smaller and smaller and nay-sayers will continue to be able to say "we still don't have A.I."
To me [chess, machine vision, speech recognition] are to AI as [wheel, engine, transmission] are to a car.
I actually find it harder to focus on one thing when there is only one thing to focus on. I can't even read a book without the dull murmur of a TV with the volume turned down just on the edge of my awareness. On the other hand, I can't concentrate on anything when there's an infomercial on... You might want to get checked for attention deficit disorder. Don't forget that ADD isn't always accompanied by the squeeky wheel of hyperactivity.
What you really see when you take a look at the life of a genius is damned near monomania. I look at Leonardo Da Vincis' life, and what I see is a prolific artist, architect, engineer, etc, etc, etc.
I think you're confusing genius with dedication. Either that, or his monomania was "using woodworks".
if the perpetrator uses a cloth to wipe the fingerprints off the metal immediately after I'm wondering: If you wipe the metal with your hands before doing it with the cloth, would you redistribute the secretions enough to blur out any information?
Look at Einstein: some cool research, but he was highly disruptive in other areas (eg. quantum mechanics or putting religious beliefs before science). Einstein said a funny quote about randomness, and now all the religious nuts use it to claim him as one of their own.
As with most things the religious nutters believe, this just doesn't happen to actually be true.
I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.
- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945,
Slashdot Mirror
From his POV, he wasn't doing anything wrong. If someone uses a sculpture to bash a man on the head, it doesn't make the artist a bad person, even if that sculpture was just the perfect shape and weight to kill. You have to consider intent.
Where's the corruption in science besides when the government pays scientists to give them the desired bias in their research? Honest question, I just have no idea.
When corporations use NDAs to suppress findings that threaten their business model.The scientists of the Big Tobacco corporations knew long ago just how toxic their products were, but they didn't publish those findings. That way the corps got to keep raking in the cash, while thousands of families lost their loved ones early to an incredibly painful and quite avoidable ailment.
You seem to suffer from an ideological position that governments are always bad, and private enterprises are always good. Please adjust your world view to mesh with reality: Governments do good and bad, and so do private endeavours.
To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug
allows doctors to carry out the death penalty
Huh?I always stand in the sun when I smoke. Do I break even?
Maybe if you open wide enough to let the sun shine down your lungs?Vitamin D is produced by the skin in response to certain wavelengths of ultraviolet light, and as such is not a true vitamin (since vitamins are substances we can't naturally produce -- it's a hormone).
What's your take on vitamin K (which "we" produce through our intestinal flora)? Izzat not a "true" vitamin either? Just curious, since I figured it stood for vital amine, not for "can't be produced by us"... that would sortof make a lot of other things vitamins (salt, for starters).Actually all the studies that address "too much" involved sever sunburns in teen years.
There is no peer reviewed study that suggests normal exposure to sun imposes a high mortality.
Yet the press, over-reacting as usual, have scared people out of the sun and created a sunscreen industry overnight by failing to actually read the studies that were done.
I don't normally defend Big Media, but in this case they were reading press releases from the dermatologists, whom I suspect had previously bought a number pof shares in that industry.The reporters were acting in good faith on the authority of doctors.
Aside from that, I'm in total agreement.
So if Google focuses of searchs the way Gilette focused on male faces, they should keep on ticking.
Found that out the hard way (by making all trolls I stumbled upon my foes).
When 9iu11ani was still running as Fox News' annointed candidate, Ron Paul pages on MySpace would quietly disappear. That's what you get for ruining a perfectly good hysteria-based nomination process, I guess.
Facebook is very useful for organizing social events. You make a page for the event, invite all your friends, they RSVP, and all relevant info can be on the events' page.
MySpace is good for bands, they can put up samples of their music, the tour dates, but I find personal pages to be huge wastes of electrons.
asswipe Yup, making the species real proud there, crippy.
Your mind seems as functional as your limbs. Good thing for you that worthwhile organisms made rolling machines to replace your legs, and word processing machines to replace your brain.
Wastes of skin like you must be happy you're not thrown off a cliff, as you ought to. But we real people sure could do without your kind.
And it was believed at the time that salamanders came from fire (hence charmander in pokemons, no kidding), I've never heard of Leonardo writing about it though, but that wasn't an idea of his, that was something he had been told.
I think Leo had ADD, he's got the classic sign: Starts something, gets halfway done and then starts two other things, rinse, repeat.
People like to think of themselves as separate from the animals because they have egos greater than their intelligence.
We eat, excrete, bleed and die like all other animals, animals fear, love and get bored like us.
We're clever monkies, plain as day, and some people are just WAY too full of themselves to admit it. So they keep making up ridiculous reasons why they are better than animals, why their country is better than others, etc. They aren't.
Mr. Clueless
continue to live and take up space. Your choice.
it stumps you.
Clueless toad. Sucks to be you.
Boy I'm glad I'm a real human, and not an embarassment to the species, like you.
When any particular subset of what we do with our brains (chess, machine vision, speech recognition, what have you) yields to research and produces commercial applications, the critics of A.I. redraw the line and that domain is no longer part of "A.I." As this continues, the problem space still considered part of "artificial intelligence" will get smaller and smaller and nay-sayers will continue to be able to say "we still don't have A.I."
To me [chess, machine vision, speech recognition] are to AI as [wheel, engine, transmission] are to a car.Don't forget that ADD isn't always accompanied by the squeeky wheel of hyperactivity.
I think you're confusing genius with dedication.
Either that, or his monomania was "using woodworks".
As was the presidents' brain.
And anyway, the files are covered up by the government for [life expectancy at the time] after the events, 2033 I think. So "now"... not so much.
As with most things the religious nutters believe, this just doesn't happen to actually be true.
I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.
- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945,