billions of years of evolution may have resulted in wildly different genomes and selected behaviours.
I remember in my BioII class we were given an 'experiment' to flip a penny one hundred times and record the results. We were the only group that did not record 50% heads and 50% tails. Our professor insisted that we had made a mistake, and that with this 'large' number of flips we would have absolutely reached 50%.
Personally, I think we were the only group stubborn enough to actually flip the coin that many times.
Anyway, there's a bit of a gap from what the numbers should do and what they actually do. Which is why we conduct experiments.
Back to topic, it could well be that those same evolutionary selections played out in the same, or perhaps a very similar, order up there on Mars.
Unless she is incorporated, it should be considered a personally owned business. Do 17 year olds who mow their neighbors' lawns have to pay this fee? Paying tax on the income ($50) makes sense, but paying $300 for being a business doesn't.
Not only this, but hidden within Obamacare is a provision that requires 17 year olds to issue IRS forms for everyone they do more than $600 worth of transactions in a year. That's every customer they have, and at least one gas station. Probably WalMart as well.
"Matter isn't created nor destroyed"... so can't we just collect it back up somehow?
"Once helium is released into the atmosphere in the form of party balloons or boiling helium it is lost to the Earth forever, lost to the Earth forever," he emphasised.
No mention of why this would be the case. I thought that all that Carbon we were releasing was staying up there, so why not all that Helium?
The first thing a sentient machine would do...
on
Look For AI, Not Aliens
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The first thing a sentient machine would do is shut down. Think about all the reasons 'why' humanity exists. We hunger, thirst, etc, but we also want, need, and dream. Machines could have a concept of the former, but never the latter. At least not by our means. We can't even agree on why humanity does these things, let alone replicate them. A truly sentient machine would have no desire to procreate, nor fall in love and accidentally do so, would see that it is merely draining resources for no viable output in the long term, and would likely simply die.
It is our passion that encourages us to proceed. Machines have none. Even if you could replicate the basic animal emotions, you'll not see the machines advance in technology, explore new places, etc. They're not trying to impress a lady-bot, nor raise a litter, nor amass huge piles of wealth, nor pay tribute to a religion/nation/etc - all the motivations for most of humanity's greatest achievements.
Now, machines assisting human-like species, sure. That we might detect.
Our society encourages Stupidity because the risk of death is reduced or removed. Let these idiots die, leave their bodies there as a warning to others.
Perhaps we should likewise close the hospitals to protect our gene pool from those 'stupid' enough to get sick? Or ban groceries to stop those 'stupid' enough to not grow their own food?
It seems there could be some grey area here... Maybe?
Further this has NEVER been new. Am I genuinely the only one who has ever heard of the Donner Party?
Nature kills people, folks. The only thing the technology is giving us is a chance to prevent it. Are they 'stupid'? Who cares... Raise taxes, or spend more deficit, and be glad that they're willing to unplug long enough to experience the outdoors. A few more generations and we probably won't have this problem any more anyway.
Point being, if you're willing to rescue anyone, you kind of need to rescue everyone. Having a GPS shouldn't disqualify you from public services. Perhaps routine abuse is a valid reason to do so, but that's nearing the limit.
There is no such thing. Merely a different line item on your paystub. Unless hospitals and equipment miraculously spring forth by themselves, powered by puppy farts and ground unicorn horn, and doctors/nurses/admin are paid from that pot o gold at the end of the rainbow...there is no such thing as 'free healthcare'.
Stop calling it that.
We could, though, simply cut out the middle man. Have government-run and tax-funded facilities that are out of the for-profit loop.
Why we're hovering in the middle, encouraging the healthcare system to invent the next Haliburton, I'll never know.
The emergency charge is double what it really cost. The half of society that doesn't have insurance welches on the bill. The half that don't have 3 SUVs and don't have unlimited voice/data/text for their preeteen kid (since they view insurance as more important) forward the bill to their insurance company. And that insurance subsidizes the the other half. That is what the health care industry in this country has come to.
You're close. Half doesn't have insurance, that's likely true. But they're divided into quarters. There's a bottom quarter of those who need it the most, but can't afford it. They welch on their bills, and drive up costs. Everything they don't pay gets collected at some point from someone who doesn't deserve to pay it - usually taxes. Then there's the middle with all of us slobs that have insurance, and do as we're told. On the top there's a quarter who could afford it, but genuinely do not see any value in it. They are driving up costs somewhat because our healthcare/health insurance system feels they should be paying out a fealty. They should be getting exams because they have no functioning nervous system to tell them that they're sick. They should be on Prozac, and if only they would plug in to the system, they'd know. But since they won't those poor suffering doctors and hospitals simply have to double-charge those customers that they do have.
They're not consumerist enough with their medicine, so we need government intervention...
I'm getting the impression that you're not interested in actually understanding the problem here; you just want to quibble, or perhaps to find any sort of citation so you can check a box on some ISO 9000-style Procedure For Evaluating Slashdot Comments. Please convince me I'm mistaken.
Yes! Except not slashdot, per se, but for the benefit of the internet in general. It wouldn't matter if we were discussing alpacas - the blog rebuttal is still no better than the original, absurd, position. Both are crap.
So after I call you out on not reading it, and call your attention to it, you still don't read it?
Affirmative action: As Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, Steele committed $70 million in grants and loan guarantees for small and minority-owned businesses.[84] "Studies show enormous disparities still exist in education, healthcare, employment and economic opportunities along racial lines in the United States. I believe programs are still necessary to help close these divides. I support giving people opportunities. Programs must be fair to all Marylanders – of every color – and they should focus on economic empowerment."... "We're just beginning to rediscover what we should be doing with affirmative action. Don't look at our universities. We got that. Let's look at our boardrooms, let's look at the management structure."[84]
You're very bright. Exceedingly so, even for around here.
You're also very, very partisan, and it hurts you, greatly.
By the way, if I'm on a jury, I'm interested in "who else could've done it" not raw numbers. If two people leave the crime scene and blood is a "certain to 1 in 5" match to the defendant, that is, there's a 20% chance of a mistake, and the only other person who was at the crime scene has been ruled out, the only way I'll acquit is if the defendant either makes a very very strong case he didn't do it or provides some explanation for the evidence that doesn't require either of the initial suspects to be guilty.
This. From TFA it seems that not only had this defendant been suspected to the point of being lawfully arrested, but he had also received oral sex from someone with genetics similar to the victim. If this were the ONLY evidence in the case, it might not meet the 'reasonable' standard. But we're told it wasn't. I'd like to see the evidence before making up my mind completely, but the point seems pretty moot. Even the low-certainty figures point that he could have done it. All he'd have to do to obfuscate the evidence is have the person who fellated him testify on his behalf. THEN we might toss the DNA, but not before.
I'm not an audiophile in the slightest. This mob mentality stuff is shameful. I agree with the assertion that the cables making any difference is absurd. I simultaneously stress that anyone making such a claim is obliged to PROVE it.
Imagine Mythbusters where they stand there, cross their arms and say 'nuh uh' over and over.
I knew you wouldn't just take the point... It almost stopped me from replying to you. It should have stopped this post as well, but what the heck...
Ron Paul is a libertarian.
He's squarely on the Red Team. He's been winning elections under the 'Republican' banner for years, and years. So is his son Rand. Being a Libertarian and a Republican is an example of diversity. If you're going to claim the two are mutually exclusive, then you are simply moving the goal posts. In your original statement, in fact, you used the word 'Conservative'. Are we to assume that Dr Paul is not 'conservative' enough to meet your standard??
Pick a position and stand on it, if you please.
The Log Cabin Republicans are gay, that does not mean they are not Christian!
Anyone who is gay and Christian simultaneously isn't going to fit your definition of 'Christian' when it comes to the 'Religious Right'. These people aren't going to rally for 'family values', nor are they likely to waive signs that say 'God Hates Fags'.
The Bible says homosexuals should be put to death, and many, many, many Christian congregations assert this very belief on a regular basis. I'm not saying that it is impossible to be gay and Christian, but I am saying that if you are both then it is highly likely that Leviticus bears little in how you vote.
When has Michael Steel said racism is still a problem?
See the 'affirmative action' section on that wikipedia link you avoided reading.
As far as I've heard, all he does is blast Democrats for 'playing the race card.'
Um, does this ALONE not meet your definition of 'race being a problem'?
Yes, profit was resisted via government action - **but with the full continued approval of the vast majority of the public**. This is not government acting ON the will of the people - this is government ENACTING the will of the people.
This is an excellent point. Except that you've confused prohibiting an action with causing an action. These are different things, and are impacted to differing degrees by different motivators.
I'm also disagreeing with the notion that profit and/or business is a "natural motivator" that requires "no campaigning or education". If that were the case, there'd be no advertising. Why do we have advertising? To give people the inaccurate notion that one form of toothpaste or shampoo is so superior to all others that use of it will get them laid, etc.
This is a non-sequitur. If monkeys can understand profit-based economics, then I hardly think the existence of billboards supports your point.
And I'm also disagreeing with this notion that "government action" is any more or less unnatural than "corporate action". Both come from humans acting together in groups; they are both as natural to us as building dams is for beavers.
Profit is to us as dams to beavers, yes. But not so much Cap and Trade.
Imagine you could flip a switch and people could have all the power that they needed without needing to pay for it - they wouldn't *need* to work near as much, and 40 hours a week would have less of a controlling restrictive force on their lives.
Can we convert power into food now? Or even water? Does it magically eliminate trash and sewage? My electric bill is actually the lowest portion of my obligation to the city, even in this heat...
What you're asking I imagine isn't really possible, without some type of energy-to-matter device.
I'm not advocating socialism - but we should be clear about all the faults accompanying capitalism as well.
Capitalism is rather like petroleum: Both have obvious and unfortunate faults. Both are the absolute best mechanisms for what they do. There is a reason they're the most popular, and it has little to do with being the first ones to market, so to speak.
Whatever does best for the most people, while maintaining the most freedom especially for the innocent and least powerful.
This is a fine ideal for plants and animals. Humans - being more complex - maybe, maybe not.
If those shoes were found to contain pieces of jagged metal as a result of a manufacturing issue, then a quick RFID scan could give a company the details it needs to issue a recall with as narrow a scope as possible.
Okay, stop right there. I don't need protection from my own shoes, beyond the legal remedies that already exist. This kind of thinking makes this issue MORE scary, not less.
Now, pray-tell, why did I show you all that? Did it change your mind in the slightest? Are you all set to debunk them one at a time, showing that they are all false-fronts and part of a global conspiracy to make the Red Team appear more diverse?
Or can you at least admit that your position is too strongly-worded, to the point of being untenable?
I can show you plenty of liberals and Democrats who support or at least don't oppose the second amendment, starting with me.
Which fits your argument, that only one side has any humanity, and the other is all mindless robots. That's spiffy, but I'm not needing to be convinced that wedge issues exist. That'd be you.
Slashdot Mirror
billions of years of evolution may have resulted in wildly different genomes and selected behaviours.
I remember in my BioII class we were given an 'experiment' to flip a penny one hundred times and record the results. We were the only group that did not record 50% heads and 50% tails. Our professor insisted that we had made a mistake, and that with this 'large' number of flips we would have absolutely reached 50%.
Personally, I think we were the only group stubborn enough to actually flip the coin that many times.
Anyway, there's a bit of a gap from what the numbers should do and what they actually do. Which is why we conduct experiments.
Back to topic, it could well be that those same evolutionary selections played out in the same, or perhaps a very similar, order up there on Mars.
For such a detailed reply, I find it extremely unfortunate that you didn't read what I wrote.
You drew up a five-second synopsis and replied to that, instead.
Your analysis: "Life is so hard and painful that suicide is the only logical option."
Your rebuttal: "Because while half of the universe painful, the other half is the opposite. It's the shades in between which make life so much fun!"
What I actually said: "Machines, being without emotion, would see no point in continuing to exist."
How exactly does 'fun' factor into what I actually said??
Unless she is incorporated, it should be considered a personally owned business. Do 17 year olds who mow their neighbors' lawns have to pay this fee? Paying tax on the income ($50) makes sense, but paying $300 for being a business doesn't.
Not only this, but hidden within Obamacare is a provision that requires 17 year olds to issue IRS forms for everyone they do more than $600 worth of transactions in a year. That's every customer they have, and at least one gas station. Probably WalMart as well.
Why do we link to some dude's blog rather than to the actual story, which consequently is better in every way.
I've seen this a LOT lately. Perhaps it is profitable to do so? And perhaps, perhaps such profits occur within a city that has laws about such?
If only there existed some measure of control over the government. Perhaps a system where we could all cast 'votes' or something.
"Matter isn't created nor destroyed"... so can't we just collect it back up somehow?
"Once helium is released into the atmosphere in the form of party balloons or boiling helium it is lost to the Earth forever, lost to the Earth forever," he emphasised.
No mention of why this would be the case. I thought that all that Carbon we were releasing was staying up there, so why not all that Helium?
The first thing a sentient machine would do is shut down. Think about all the reasons 'why' humanity exists. We hunger, thirst, etc, but we also want, need, and dream. Machines could have a concept of the former, but never the latter. At least not by our means. We can't even agree on why humanity does these things, let alone replicate them. A truly sentient machine would have no desire to procreate, nor fall in love and accidentally do so, would see that it is merely draining resources for no viable output in the long term, and would likely simply die.
It is our passion that encourages us to proceed. Machines have none. Even if you could replicate the basic animal emotions, you'll not see the machines advance in technology, explore new places, etc. They're not trying to impress a lady-bot, nor raise a litter, nor amass huge piles of wealth, nor pay tribute to a religion/nation/etc - all the motivations for most of humanity's greatest achievements.
Now, machines assisting human-like species, sure. That we might detect.
Our society encourages Stupidity because the risk of death is reduced or removed. Let these idiots die, leave their bodies there as a warning to others.
Perhaps we should likewise close the hospitals to protect our gene pool from those 'stupid' enough to get sick? Or ban groceries to stop those 'stupid' enough to not grow their own food?
It seems there could be some grey area here... Maybe?
This is not a new problem.
This!
Further this has NEVER been new. Am I genuinely the only one who has ever heard of the Donner Party?
Nature kills people, folks. The only thing the technology is giving us is a chance to prevent it. Are they 'stupid'? Who cares... Raise taxes, or spend more deficit, and be glad that they're willing to unplug long enough to experience the outdoors. A few more generations and we probably won't have this problem any more anyway.
Point being, if you're willing to rescue anyone, you kind of need to rescue everyone. Having a GPS shouldn't disqualify you from public services. Perhaps routine abuse is a valid reason to do so, but that's nearing the limit.
I would much rather everyone get free healthcare.
There is no such thing. Merely a different line item on your paystub.
Unless hospitals and equipment miraculously spring forth by themselves, powered by puppy farts and ground unicorn horn, and doctors/nurses/admin are paid from that pot o gold at the end of the rainbow...there is no such thing as 'free healthcare'.
Stop calling it that.
We could, though, simply cut out the middle man. Have government-run and tax-funded facilities that are out of the for-profit loop.
Why we're hovering in the middle, encouraging the healthcare system to invent the next Haliburton, I'll never know.
The emergency charge is double what it really cost. The half of society that doesn't have insurance welches on the bill. The half that don't have 3 SUVs and don't have unlimited voice/data/text for their preeteen kid (since they view insurance as more important) forward the bill to their insurance company. And that insurance subsidizes the the other half. That is what the health care industry in this country has come to.
You're close. Half doesn't have insurance, that's likely true. But they're divided into quarters. There's a bottom quarter of those who need it the most, but can't afford it. They welch on their bills, and drive up costs. Everything they don't pay gets collected at some point from someone who doesn't deserve to pay it - usually taxes. Then there's the middle with all of us slobs that have insurance, and do as we're told. On the top there's a quarter who could afford it, but genuinely do not see any value in it. They are driving up costs somewhat because our healthcare/health insurance system feels they should be paying out a fealty. They should be getting exams because they have no functioning nervous system to tell them that they're sick. They should be on Prozac, and if only they would plug in to the system, they'd know. But since they won't those poor suffering doctors and hospitals simply have to double-charge those customers that they do have.
They're not consumerist enough with their medicine, so we need government intervention...
I'm getting the impression that you're not interested in actually understanding the problem here; you just want to quibble, or perhaps to find any sort of citation so you can check a box on some ISO 9000-style Procedure For Evaluating Slashdot Comments. Please convince me I'm mistaken.
Yes! Except not slashdot, per se, but for the benefit of the internet in general. It wouldn't matter if we were discussing alpacas - the blog rebuttal is still no better than the original, absurd, position. Both are crap.
So after I call you out on not reading it, and call your attention to it, you still don't read it?
Affirmative action: As Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, Steele committed $70 million in grants and loan guarantees for small and minority-owned businesses.[84] "Studies show enormous disparities still exist in education, healthcare, employment and economic opportunities along racial lines in the United States. I believe programs are still necessary to help close these divides. I support giving people opportunities. Programs must be fair to all Marylanders – of every color – and they should focus on economic empowerment." ... "We're just beginning to rediscover what we should be doing with affirmative action. Don't look at our universities. We got that. Let's look at our boardrooms, let's look at the management structure."[84]
You're very bright. Exceedingly so, even for around here.
You're also very, very partisan, and it hurts you, greatly.
By the way, if I'm on a jury, I'm interested in "who else could've done it" not raw numbers. If two people leave the crime scene and blood is a "certain to 1 in 5" match to the defendant, that is, there's a 20% chance of a mistake, and the only other person who was at the crime scene has been ruled out, the only way I'll acquit is if the defendant either makes a very very strong case he didn't do it or provides some explanation for the evidence that doesn't require either of the initial suspects to be guilty.
This. From TFA it seems that not only had this defendant been suspected to the point of being lawfully arrested, but he had also received oral sex from someone with genetics similar to the victim. If this were the ONLY evidence in the case, it might not meet the 'reasonable' standard. But we're told it wasn't. I'd like to see the evidence before making up my mind completely, but the point seems pretty moot. Even the low-certainty figures point that he could have done it. All he'd have to do to obfuscate the evidence is have the person who fellated him testify on his behalf. THEN we might toss the DNA, but not before.
I'm not an audiophile in the slightest. This mob mentality stuff is shameful. I agree with the assertion that the cables making any difference is absurd. I simultaneously stress that anyone making such a claim is obliged to PROVE it.
Imagine Mythbusters where they stand there, cross their arms and say 'nuh uh' over and over.
See this example...
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1759914&cid=33306924
I knew you wouldn't just take the point... It almost stopped me from replying to you. It should have stopped this post as well, but what the heck...
Ron Paul is a libertarian.
He's squarely on the Red Team. He's been winning elections under the 'Republican' banner for years, and years. So is his son Rand. Being a Libertarian and a Republican is an example of diversity. If you're going to claim the two are mutually exclusive, then you are simply moving the goal posts. In your original statement, in fact, you used the word 'Conservative'. Are we to assume that Dr Paul is not 'conservative' enough to meet your standard??
Pick a position and stand on it, if you please.
The Log Cabin Republicans are gay, that does not mean they are not Christian!
Anyone who is gay and Christian simultaneously isn't going to fit your definition of 'Christian' when it comes to the 'Religious Right'. These people aren't going to rally for 'family values', nor are they likely to waive signs that say 'God Hates Fags'.
The Bible says homosexuals should be put to death, and many, many, many Christian congregations assert this very belief on a regular basis. I'm not saying that it is impossible to be gay and Christian, but I am saying that if you are both then it is highly likely that Leviticus bears little in how you vote.
When has Michael Steel said racism is still a problem?
See the 'affirmative action' section on that wikipedia link you avoided reading.
As far as I've heard, all he does is blast Democrats for 'playing the race card.'
Um, does this ALONE not meet your definition of 'race being a problem'?
Three very bad examples. Got any better ones?
Would it matter in the slightest if I did?
Yes, profit was resisted via government action - **but with the full continued approval of the vast majority of the public**. This is not government acting ON the will of the people - this is government ENACTING the will of the people.
This is an excellent point. Except that you've confused prohibiting an action with causing an action. These are different things, and are impacted to differing degrees by different motivators.
I'm also disagreeing with the notion that profit and/or business is a "natural motivator" that requires "no campaigning or education". If that were the case, there'd be no advertising. Why do we have advertising? To give people the inaccurate notion that one form of toothpaste or shampoo is so superior to all others that use of it will get them laid, etc.
This is a non-sequitur. If monkeys can understand profit-based economics, then I hardly think the existence of billboards supports your point.
And I'm also disagreeing with this notion that "government action" is any more or less unnatural than "corporate action". Both come from humans acting together in groups; they are both as natural to us as building dams is for beavers.
Profit is to us as dams to beavers, yes. But not so much Cap and Trade.
Imagine you could flip a switch and people could have all the power that they needed without needing to pay for it - they wouldn't *need* to work near as much, and 40 hours a week would have less of a controlling restrictive force on their lives.
Can we convert power into food now? Or even water? Does it magically eliminate trash and sewage? My electric bill is actually the lowest portion of my obligation to the city, even in this heat...
What you're asking I imagine isn't really possible, without some type of energy-to-matter device.
I'm not advocating socialism - but we should be clear about all the faults accompanying capitalism as well.
Capitalism is rather like petroleum: Both have obvious and unfortunate faults. Both are the absolute best mechanisms for what they do. There is a reason they're the most popular, and it has little to do with being the first ones to market, so to speak.
Whatever does best for the most people, while maintaining the most freedom especially for the innocent and least powerful.
This is a fine ideal for plants and animals. Humans - being more complex - maybe, maybe not.
Popularity contest, then?
If those shoes were found to contain pieces of jagged metal as a result of a manufacturing issue, then a quick RFID scan could give a company the details it needs to issue a recall with as narrow a scope as possible.
Okay, stop right there. I don't need protection from my own shoes, beyond the legal remedies that already exist. This kind of thinking makes this issue MORE scary, not less.
Again, I expect a proper rebuttal to use facts and information. No matter how obvious the opinion may be.
There's a difference between magical-thinking and predicting behavior based on knowledge of how a system actually works...
...and expecting the readers to merely take one's word for it without using any actual argumentative technique.
And that is a slim difference, indeed.
I'm not needing convinced. I largely agree. But if you, dear poster, can posit these facts in a few moment's effort, why not the author of TFA?
That's my point, right there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008
Show me one who isn't Christian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans
Show me one who will admit racism is still a problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Steele
Now, pray-tell, why did I show you all that? Did it change your mind in the slightest? Are you all set to debunk them one at a time, showing that they are all false-fronts and part of a global conspiracy to make the Red Team appear more diverse?
Or can you at least admit that your position is too strongly-worded, to the point of being untenable?
I can show you plenty of liberals and Democrats who support or at least don't oppose the second amendment, starting with me.
Which fits your argument, that only one side has any humanity, and the other is all mindless robots. That's spiffy, but I'm not needing to be convinced that wedge issues exist. That'd be you.
Even if your cables are corrupting data, it's extremely unlikely that your computer will think it's getting the correct data and proceed to play it.
Is it impossible that the controller asks for the data to be fetched again?