I did not find a sentiment that equatest to "Some eccentric approaches can lead to war and some will not " in your comments above. What you communicated was that all eccentric approaches ale more likely to lead to war than conventional approaches.
Clinton's stance, war-like though it was, was both more predictable and less likely to lead to nuclear conflagration
This is where we disagree. Clinton keeps her real positions private. This makes her unpredictable. My whole family are masters at the private-public game and my father is an attorney that for some reason prefers to sell children's clothes at Macy's. He also took off with those of us children that belong to him. My mom had another child after divorcing him. I have a sister that died, a brother who seems rather successful but married a Chinese woman, a half-sister that teaches, but has married and divorced several times, and a mother with a Bachelor's degree in psychology that drives for Uber. That isn't predictable.
To be charitable, he might be referred to as "hard bargaining".
Eccentric is hardly a good euphemism for "volatile". You fail at English. And volatile covers a wide range of actions as well. covering saying mean things to people to all-out warfare. And Trump is the saying mean things to people sort of person, not the all-out warfare type. And volatility is a make up of Hillary as well, as evidenced by her actions on going to war as Secretary of State. There are problems with the word, volitile as well. It can mean quick to anger or unpredictable. You are an utter failure at word choices.
You continue to illustate your lack of understanding of things outside your skill-set by thinking that talking like a person who is uninformed about how degrees work is actually an illustration of how much you know. Utter failure.
Now as you said, you might not read this, but i find it might be helpful to illustrate to others why your behavior should be a textbook example on how not to communicate well.
I find that when people don't understand what I say, it usually turns out to be due to ignorance on their part. I also find it is generally the case. So in the future, you should probably lead with it's your own ignorance to blame.
To put what I said in blander terms. I said that I might like greater Chinese influence in the world as opposed to what America has been doing in the world. China has a system that prevents its citizens from accessing materials the Chinese government doesn't want them to see because it might cause opposition to the government. This system is generally referred to as "The Great Firewall of China". However, it has been communicated, even right here on this very site, that if someone really wants to access said materials, a way can be found. There is a book written by George Orwell called "1984". In it, people are persecuted for doing things that they find enjoyable that the state frowns upon. That is not the rationale for the Chinese system, and people are still free enough to continuously find things they find enjoyable. There are books called self-help books. Among them are books that say they will help you enjoy life more. One of the major elements in such books is that you simply don't know what the book will teach you and in so learning the contents within you will enjoy life better, so the reason you weren't enjoying life so much before is simply your fault.
If you still have trouble understanding any of this, point out specific details and your best guess as to what it might mean and I may be able to help you understand further. But it is simply your fault you don't understand.
The satellites have backup clocks for the very reason that something like this would happen. It just wasn't expected to happen on this scale, but despite that all satellites apparently have at least one rubidium and one hydrogen clock running. They have successfully gotten one hydrogen clock that wasn't running to run again, and there is apparently no reason to expect either way that the other clocks will or will not get restarted. Somebody in earlier comments mentioned a test that was run that may have induced the failure, so it is a bad test. Add it to the things to not do in the future. But the article seemed a bit light on what the things that can be done are, or what got that one clock working.
We had stupid choices for president. I didn't vote as none of them shared my values very much. Hillary shares some of the tactics my family is known to employ, but she is a rank amature in comparison. This is my brother: https://www.linkedin.com/in/oc... I am sort of a black sheep in the family as I have little to show for my life. I am a bit like the ruler of the universe in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
So far, Trump tweets mean things or threatens to sue when someone does something he doesn't like, and if you continue doing something Trump doesn't like he will tweet mean things or threaten to sue again. He rarely ever sues as I understand it, and there are plenty of people who just moved on to other things but didn't back down on the original situation. That is a far different tactic than someone who would easily use nukes would take, like for example people who cross you turning up dead. I can't say for certain that Hillary has been involved with people winding up dead, but to put a new spin on an old campaign slogan, in your heart you know she might. Now where is your real evidence for Trump quickly actually using the nuclear option, and even if then where it would be significantly worse than using conventional weapons. Nukes are scary, but a rational examination of the situation can see the use of nukes without significant retaliation. What no one is asking is what if we are better off using nukes against a select group of enemies? Although Trump did field a similar question.
I wonder what a world where that is considered normal rather than corruption would be like. My speculations are all over the map from bad to good given the results of capitalism in general.
Considering all the bad ideas about Trump floating around and paraded in these comments, yours is refreshingly accurate. You should be modded up 5, insightful, though considering all the above I mentioned, I have doubts it will happen.
When "rude gestures" are made by military vessels it is a military engagement, and not just "rude gestures".
When Trump says why can't we use nuclear weapons, it is mainly posturing to figure out why we can't use the threat of nuclear weapons as a bargaining tactic.
However, any weapon in our arsenal will have a desired effect, and nuclear weapons just seem scary. I am somewhat bothered that the main reason we don't use nuclear weapons is because they have been used on civilian populations when they were used and a use case on using it on military hasn't been made.
Based on Trump's history, he boast of facts not yet in hand, but gets options based on fact before acting, so when it comes time he will get options from people who do know things that may be better or worse informed than the generals. He does tend to make decisions that at the very least don't have many detractors. People may find his decisions uninteresting, but Trump detractors are upset Trump does not share their philosopy rather than any one decision he made.
He will only engage in war if it becomes popular. There's more chance of intervention in the Israel-Palestinian conflict than in Syria. His statements about oil are what's been the popular opinion about the spoils of war since war was a thing. His statements about the spoils of war were provisional about there being war in the first place and was not necessarily an endorsement of committing the wars in the first place. It also was not his biggest complaint.
His biggest complaint was a lack of jobs followed by statements surrounding immigrants, illegal and H1B's mainly, taking jobs that he thinks should have gone to people already here. Just about anything else was distant.
I think I prefer the Chinese Dragon to Team America. If you play your cards right, the Great Firewall of China is porous. There have been stories where plenty of researchers say they would prefer the Great Firewall be lowered in their case, but they say they do jump through the hoops to get to the information they need, so it is possible. No matter who has been doing what, the conceit of 1984 has never been the case. Plenty of self-help books declare that if you aren't doing something you enjoy it's your own fault.
Some eccentric approaches can lead to war and some will not. A further refinement is needed before you can logically declare a given eccentric approach will lead to war. Eccentric means uncommon, not unpredictable or even unstable.
A "Science" degree, is incomplete to describe a degree. You have Associates, Bachelors, Masters and Dotorates of either Science or the Arts in various disciplines. Law and Humanities are both disciplines.
Having a public and private position in no way is evidence for or against being more capable than someone who is unable to adjust their position, and in fact you can be someone who is unable to adjust your position and have any number of public and private facing positions. They can all be completely wrong. Even if you can adjust, that doesn't even mean the adjustments are right, thus the backlash against supposed flip-flopping, which is generally irrational, but has roots in a rational problem.
Trump is someone that gets people to make decisions for him then claims them as his own. Like with the Republican Congress' medical insurance implementation, he will have people working on solutions regarding things that have to do with war. Trump has a track record with buildings that he is involved with things that actually get built. Of his other businesses, while some failed, it appears that while all of them were operating, they at least delivered a product. Trump has a track record of delivering things that people want at least a little bit, and are uninterested in usually at worse. Hillary deliveres things that people express strong preferences that they would not have wanted to be delivered.
You felt your eyes twitch and felt that meant something was about to get worse with your eyes as a result. I wonder how many people experience what I experence when I say I have a true depth-perception experience. There are certain conditions required for me to experience true depth. There are actually two different sets of stimuli that can trigger it to varying degrees. Proper shading of a scene can trigger it after a fashion in 2d scenes. Games from the Playstation 2 era can trigger it, but I have yet to see a Playstation 1 game that does. This is actually a newish experience, as my brain didn't use to give me that sense with this stimuli.
Then there is the depth perception in the real world which has been touch and go. I have discovered it has to do with the properties of the lenses in the glasses that I wear and seems to have to do more specificially with measurements that are done for things like pupil distance and not focal power. They have refined in recent years their understanding of the optics system that result in prescriptions for eye glasses and contact lenses, but their understanding is still very incomplete. They have added a red green test to tell if further refinement triggers other issues. They have told me that depth perception remains in the realm of the unprescribable, though those are not the exact words that they use. I believe that such a time will come however, as I currently have lenses that provide me with very good depth perception, though it has other interesting sensations besides the depth perception effect that are physical in the same way as twitching is physical but not really a component of visual perception. So who knows if your eyes would get better or worse as a result of whatever causes them to twitch. So, I guess not risking it may be the right decision for you, but it isn't the whole story.
There are plenty of televisions that operate at 240hz. Using one of these, it would be trivial to have a separate box that uses glasses to display 3d... or make a system like what made Duck Hunt work, easier. The methods used by the more modern consoles just don't work as well.
Regardless of whether Trump is a "madman" or a "loose cannon" either of the two terms describe too wide a field to be relevant to the issue of war, nuclear or otherwise. So for that matter, is "level-headed" You choose terms that encompass too wide a field to be relevant to anything then claim to have superior reasoning capabilities. You may be able to think logically enough to be useful in whatever field you apply it in with the relevant data, but your ability to figure out what data is relevant outside that field is sorely lacking. Trump's behavior has far less hidden variables than Hillary's. Both have provided plenty of evidence this is true. Therefore people have more options they are aware of when dealing with Trump.
Does Hillary saying she has a public position and a private position mean nothing to you?
The Chinese respond to rhetoric, but I have found that the Oriental are better than the Occidental in distinguishing between rhetoric and reality, so they are nowhere near acting in a cold war behavior.
While I can have no idea of what your true knowledge of the situation is, your post is the act of one who, whether pretending or for real, has only been paying attention to the rhetoric.
I don't live anywhere near he has built a building. I also don't watch his show. I just happen to recall that he is involved with getting his name put on buildings and either leasing or owning like a condominium parts of them, more clearly and frequently than I remember that he does some show somewhere. I am 40 and have lived mainly in the middle column of the country, except for one year in Virginia Beach in the 12th grade, which was quite an interesting experience. This life may have oriented me towards thinking about his buildings, however, and I don't know how much is replicated in others. I find you have a track record of exceptionally good and exceptionally bad posts, btw.
And that makes it a strawman, how? The general thrust of his argument is that the detractors of AI are so hung up on the concept of intelligence that they never address whether we will be able to artificially replicate the functions of the brain or how close we are, or what is in the works to get us closer, or anything in that area really.
Once we eliminate all the posturing around the concept of intelligence by changing the term to machine learning, all the arguments collapse.
I'm not sure how much the brain has been viewed as a bunch of digital circuits, but what those who make the claim that it has been and therefore our understanding of the brain is flawed as a result, don't seem to know is that artificial analog circuits have been around longer than digital ones.
We've been replacing "transistor infrastructures" with ever smaller "transistor infrastructures". They will eventually find a way to make cost effective "memristor infrastructures" and then they will in short order be built... and then improvements will be made and the same cycles will be seen with memristors, and light based designs, and quantum designs... and as an outlier maybe even biological ones. But biologic-nonbiologic interfaces which may employ some of the above technologies will abound as well.
Before we can answer the question, "Is there any reason for brains to look like each other if it was magic'd into existence by divine fiat?" it might be helpful to look into the question, "Do microprocessors look like each other?" Alternatively we can ponder the statement, "If brains were magic'd into existence by divine fiat, there is no reason for brains to either look or not look like others." However if information is self perpetuating, one of the forms it might take is the form of something that has been referred to as the divine, but most of the purported attributes of such a thing seem to be tautologies at best. God is good and perfect merely when he has been defined as good and perfect from the outset.
Nor is it yours apparently. Trump is most known for being involved in the building of several large buildings, not for being a madman. Sure, his behavior is eccentrically self-promoting, but other than that his behavior isn't noted for madness. I can predict that one of his next moves is to claim credit for the medical bill that the Republican Congress hashes out that he will claim his administration submitted.
Just what is your definition of "Functioning member of society" and what about what you have said makes your guy not one? I am less of a functioning member of society than some by virtue of needing to be on disability and being unable to get hired to do anything and not being able to drive, but still, I try to contribute to society and that's really the important part in my book, but then my book isn't of any importance to you because I am, no doubt, not a functioning member of society, in yours.
Slashdot Mirror
This is where we disagree. Clinton keeps her real positions private. This makes her unpredictable. My whole family are masters at the private-public game and my father is an attorney that for some reason prefers to sell children's clothes at Macy's. He also took off with those of us children that belong to him. My mom had another child after divorcing him. I have a sister that died, a brother who seems rather successful but married a Chinese woman, a half-sister that teaches, but has married and divorced several times, and a mother with a Bachelor's degree in psychology that drives for Uber. That isn't predictable.
To be charitable, he might be referred to as "hard bargaining".
Eccentric is hardly a good euphemism for "volatile". You fail at English. And volatile covers a wide range of actions as well. covering saying mean things to people to all-out warfare. And Trump is the saying mean things to people sort of person, not the all-out warfare type. And volatility is a make up of Hillary as well, as evidenced by her actions on going to war as Secretary of State. There are problems with the word, volitile as well. It can mean quick to anger or unpredictable. You are an utter failure at word choices.
You continue to illustate your lack of understanding of things outside your skill-set by thinking that talking like a person who is uninformed about how degrees work is actually an illustration of how much you know. Utter failure.
Now as you said, you might not read this, but i find it might be helpful to illustrate to others why your behavior should be a textbook example on how not to communicate well.
I find that when people don't understand what I say, it usually turns out to be due to ignorance on their part. I also find it is generally the case. So in the future, you should probably lead with it's your own ignorance to blame.
To put what I said in blander terms. I said that I might like greater Chinese influence in the world as opposed to what America has been doing in the world. China has a system that prevents its citizens from accessing materials the Chinese government doesn't want them to see because it might cause opposition to the government. This system is generally referred to as "The Great Firewall of China". However, it has been communicated, even right here on this very site, that if someone really wants to access said materials, a way can be found. There is a book written by George Orwell called "1984". In it, people are persecuted for doing things that they find enjoyable that the state frowns upon. That is not the rationale for the Chinese system, and people are still free enough to continuously find things they find enjoyable. There are books called self-help books. Among them are books that say they will help you enjoy life more. One of the major elements in such books is that you simply don't know what the book will teach you and in so learning the contents within you will enjoy life better, so the reason you weren't enjoying life so much before is simply your fault.
If you still have trouble understanding any of this, point out specific details and your best guess as to what it might mean and I may be able to help you understand further. But it is simply your fault you don't understand.
The satellites have backup clocks for the very reason that something like this would happen. It just wasn't expected to happen on this scale, but despite that all satellites apparently have at least one rubidium and one hydrogen clock running. They have successfully gotten one hydrogen clock that wasn't running to run again, and there is apparently no reason to expect either way that the other clocks will or will not get restarted. Somebody in earlier comments mentioned a test that was run that may have induced the failure, so it is a bad test. Add it to the things to not do in the future. But the article seemed a bit light on what the things that can be done are, or what got that one clock working.
We had stupid choices for president. I didn't vote as none of them shared my values very much. Hillary shares some of the tactics my family is known to employ, but she is a rank amature in comparison. This is my brother: https://www.linkedin.com/in/oc... I am sort of a black sheep in the family as I have little to show for my life. I am a bit like the ruler of the universe in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
So far, Trump tweets mean things or threatens to sue when someone does something he doesn't like, and if you continue doing something Trump doesn't like he will tweet mean things or threaten to sue again. He rarely ever sues as I understand it, and there are plenty of people who just moved on to other things but didn't back down on the original situation. That is a far different tactic than someone who would easily use nukes would take, like for example people who cross you turning up dead. I can't say for certain that Hillary has been involved with people winding up dead, but to put a new spin on an old campaign slogan, in your heart you know she might. Now where is your real evidence for Trump quickly actually using the nuclear option, and even if then where it would be significantly worse than using conventional weapons. Nukes are scary, but a rational examination of the situation can see the use of nukes without significant retaliation. What no one is asking is what if we are better off using nukes against a select group of enemies? Although Trump did field a similar question.
I wonder what a world where that is considered normal rather than corruption would be like. My speculations are all over the map from bad to good given the results of capitalism in general.
Considering all the bad ideas about Trump floating around and paraded in these comments, yours is refreshingly accurate. You should be modded up 5, insightful, though considering all the above I mentioned, I have doubts it will happen.
When "rude gestures" are made by military vessels it is a military engagement, and not just "rude gestures".
When Trump says why can't we use nuclear weapons, it is mainly posturing to figure out why we can't use the threat of nuclear weapons as a bargaining tactic.
However, any weapon in our arsenal will have a desired effect, and nuclear weapons just seem scary. I am somewhat bothered that the main reason we don't use nuclear weapons is because they have been used on civilian populations when they were used and a use case on using it on military hasn't been made.
Based on Trump's history, he boast of facts not yet in hand, but gets options based on fact before acting, so when it comes time he will get options from people who do know things that may be better or worse informed than the generals. He does tend to make decisions that at the very least don't have many detractors. People may find his decisions uninteresting, but Trump detractors are upset Trump does not share their philosopy rather than any one decision he made.
He will only engage in war if it becomes popular. There's more chance of intervention in the Israel-Palestinian conflict than in Syria. His statements about oil are what's been the popular opinion about the spoils of war since war was a thing. His statements about the spoils of war were provisional about there being war in the first place and was not necessarily an endorsement of committing the wars in the first place. It also was not his biggest complaint.
His biggest complaint was a lack of jobs followed by statements surrounding immigrants, illegal and H1B's mainly, taking jobs that he thinks should have gone to people already here. Just about anything else was distant.
I think I prefer the Chinese Dragon to Team America. If you play your cards right, the Great Firewall of China is porous. There have been stories where plenty of researchers say they would prefer the Great Firewall be lowered in their case, but they say they do jump through the hoops to get to the information they need, so it is possible. No matter who has been doing what, the conceit of 1984 has never been the case. Plenty of self-help books declare that if you aren't doing something you enjoy it's your own fault.
Some eccentric approaches can lead to war and some will not. A further refinement is needed before you can logically declare a given eccentric approach will lead to war. Eccentric means uncommon, not unpredictable or even unstable.
A "Science" degree, is incomplete to describe a degree. You have Associates, Bachelors, Masters and Dotorates of either Science or the Arts in various disciplines. Law and Humanities are both disciplines.
Having a public and private position in no way is evidence for or against being more capable than someone who is unable to adjust their position, and in fact you can be someone who is unable to adjust your position and have any number of public and private facing positions. They can all be completely wrong. Even if you can adjust, that doesn't even mean the adjustments are right, thus the backlash against supposed flip-flopping, which is generally irrational, but has roots in a rational problem.
Trump is someone that gets people to make decisions for him then claims them as his own. Like with the Republican Congress' medical insurance implementation, he will have people working on solutions regarding things that have to do with war. Trump has a track record with buildings that he is involved with things that actually get built. Of his other businesses, while some failed, it appears that while all of them were operating, they at least delivered a product. Trump has a track record of delivering things that people want at least a little bit, and are uninterested in usually at worse. Hillary deliveres things that people express strong preferences that they would not have wanted to be delivered.
You felt your eyes twitch and felt that meant something was about to get worse with your eyes as a result. I wonder how many people experience what I experence when I say I have a true depth-perception experience. There are certain conditions required for me to experience true depth. There are actually two different sets of stimuli that can trigger it to varying degrees. Proper shading of a scene can trigger it after a fashion in 2d scenes. Games from the Playstation 2 era can trigger it, but I have yet to see a Playstation 1 game that does. This is actually a newish experience, as my brain didn't use to give me that sense with this stimuli.
Then there is the depth perception in the real world which has been touch and go. I have discovered it has to do with the properties of the lenses in the glasses that I wear and seems to have to do more specificially with measurements that are done for things like pupil distance and not focal power. They have refined in recent years their understanding of the optics system that result in prescriptions for eye glasses and contact lenses, but their understanding is still very incomplete. They have added a red green test to tell if further refinement triggers other issues. They have told me that depth perception remains in the realm of the unprescribable, though those are not the exact words that they use. I believe that such a time will come however, as I currently have lenses that provide me with very good depth perception, though it has other interesting sensations besides the depth perception effect that are physical in the same way as twitching is physical but not really a component of visual perception. So who knows if your eyes would get better or worse as a result of whatever causes them to twitch. So, I guess not risking it may be the right decision for you, but it isn't the whole story.
There are plenty of televisions that operate at 240hz. Using one of these, it would be trivial to have a separate box that uses glasses to display 3d... or make a system like what made Duck Hunt work, easier. The methods used by the more modern consoles just don't work as well.
Regardless of whether Trump is a "madman" or a "loose cannon" either of the two terms describe too wide a field to be relevant to the issue of war, nuclear or otherwise. So for that matter, is "level-headed" You choose terms that encompass too wide a field to be relevant to anything then claim to have superior reasoning capabilities. You may be able to think logically enough to be useful in whatever field you apply it in with the relevant data, but your ability to figure out what data is relevant outside that field is sorely lacking. Trump's behavior has far less hidden variables than Hillary's. Both have provided plenty of evidence this is true. Therefore people have more options they are aware of when dealing with Trump.
Does Hillary saying she has a public position and a private position mean nothing to you?
The Chinese respond to rhetoric, but I have found that the Oriental are better than the Occidental in distinguishing between rhetoric and reality, so they are nowhere near acting in a cold war behavior.
While I can have no idea of what your true knowledge of the situation is, your post is the act of one who, whether pretending or for real, has only been paying attention to the rhetoric.
I don't live anywhere near he has built a building. I also don't watch his show. I just happen to recall that he is involved with getting his name put on buildings and either leasing or owning like a condominium parts of them, more clearly and frequently than I remember that he does some show somewhere. I am 40 and have lived mainly in the middle column of the country, except for one year in Virginia Beach in the 12th grade, which was quite an interesting experience. This life may have oriented me towards thinking about his buildings, however, and I don't know how much is replicated in others. I find you have a track record of exceptionally good and exceptionally bad posts, btw.
And that makes it a strawman, how? The general thrust of his argument is that the detractors of AI are so hung up on the concept of intelligence that they never address whether we will be able to artificially replicate the functions of the brain or how close we are, or what is in the works to get us closer, or anything in that area really.
Once we eliminate all the posturing around the concept of intelligence by changing the term to machine learning, all the arguments collapse.
I'm not sure how much the brain has been viewed as a bunch of digital circuits, but what those who make the claim that it has been and therefore our understanding of the brain is flawed as a result, don't seem to know is that artificial analog circuits have been around longer than digital ones.
We've been replacing "transistor infrastructures" with ever smaller "transistor infrastructures". They will eventually find a way to make cost effective "memristor infrastructures" and then they will in short order be built... and then improvements will be made and the same cycles will be seen with memristors, and light based designs, and quantum designs... and as an outlier maybe even biological ones. But biologic-nonbiologic interfaces which may employ some of the above technologies will abound as well.
We don't know everything about how the brain works but we know a lot. How much is left to be known remains to be seen.
Before we can answer the question, "Is there any reason for brains to look like each other if it was magic'd into existence by divine fiat?" it might be helpful to look into the question, "Do microprocessors look like each other?" Alternatively we can ponder the statement, "If brains were magic'd into existence by divine fiat, there is no reason for brains to either look or not look like others." However if information is self perpetuating, one of the forms it might take is the form of something that has been referred to as the divine, but most of the purported attributes of such a thing seem to be tautologies at best. God is good and perfect merely when he has been defined as good and perfect from the outset.
Nor is it yours apparently. Trump is most known for being involved in the building of several large buildings, not for being a madman. Sure, his behavior is eccentrically self-promoting, but other than that his behavior isn't noted for madness. I can predict that one of his next moves is to claim credit for the medical bill that the Republican Congress hashes out that he will claim his administration submitted.
Rhetoric is not reality. All you've been paying attention to is the rhetoric.
Just what is your definition of "Functioning member of society" and what about what you have said makes your guy not one? I am less of a functioning member of society than some by virtue of needing to be on disability and being unable to get hired to do anything and not being able to drive, but still, I try to contribute to society and that's really the important part in my book, but then my book isn't of any importance to you because I am, no doubt, not a functioning member of society, in yours.
I'm not entirely certain how aware my mom is that some of the stuff I get for her to watch is "pirated".