I've never moved the goalposts. My definition of "AI" is a computer program that can create an "AI" better than itself. Let every generation run that task for 10,000 generation, and the result will meet everyone's definition of "AI". But no AI has been smart enough to be able to write another AI, let alone one better than itself.
The holy grail of AI is to make an AI that can make an AI smarter than itself. When that happens, 10,000 cycles later we'll have an AI that's effectively smarter than the sum of all humans.
So speech recognition is AI, and Alexa's responses aren't?
Because all the evidence is that the AI services aren't. That they use some form of AI-like tech to generate a portion of a non-AI response doesn't make it AI.
"Unrestricted-calorie diets"? So it's not blind, or double blind, and no control.
The real studies are done in rats, where the calories are counted, measured, and delivered in specific ratios. Double blind, and properly controlled.
But the fad-dies-pushers refuse to do that, because they know it would prove their sham diet to be a sham. So they make up studies that don't actually test the diet, and claim victory.
My favorite are the ones where those on the diet get increased exercise. Though, that's usually hidden far in the "method" and ignored in the published results.
The economy would recover. But the dip that accompanies positive change is remembered much more clearly than the recovery to a much better place that follows 3 years later. That fixes everything. Just not in a short enough time frame for the "next quarter" attention span of voters.
Archie was around, along with multiple spider services. You weren't stuck using AOL. AOL was always just an advertising engine, not a search engine. Gopher had no search engine and was still better than the first few years of Yahoo, as it was semi-hierarchical.
Yes. The same process that gets the fat to distribute evenly in the milk gets it to spread around inside your mouth. That is a greasy film left in your mouth by the homogenization. That you've never noticed doesn't mean it doesn't happen. What magic does your milk have where homogenization distributes fat in water (milk) but not in water (saliva)?
Many others have pointed out that "homogenization" is a mechanical process of pushing cream through a screen to break it down to smaller pieces that don't clump or rise. You can treat cream for homogenization while it's whole milk, or separately. Apparently it's you who doesn't know what it is. Here, I've been told that the process does include an emulsifier that helps keep the separation, which was what I was referring to. Apparently the process here is vastly different than the US.
It appears people disagree more with the implications than the facts. Milk can be made by separating the parts, treating them separately, then mixing them back together. Some places do it that way, some places don't. Apparently, they can't do it here the way they do because in parts of the US Slashdotters live don't do it that way.
Ah, one of the "carb bad" religious nuts. There is no science that supports that position. Every study that comes close is obviously biased for a specific result, and horribly invalid. And no, I haven't read them all, as when every one of them looks the same, there's no reason to keep reading them until they find something. But they never do. The sham studies refuse to compare calories from fat to calories from complex carbs and fiber.
When you have to lie in your study and compare fat to simple sugar, you know you are a fraud, and are only scamming the religious nuts that have already bought into the cult.
As if that's the only alternative to the food pyramid.
It's the one that's been given on Slashdot. Not in the one I was replying to, but in other threads under this article. It's expensive, and it doesn't work.
The "canteen" or tuck shop or whatever in the US (and most industrialized nations) have a full cafeteria with menu. About 20% of students take sack lunches. Sack lunch is a sign of upper lower-class. Those too "rich" to have subsidized lunches, but not rich enough to buy lunch. PB&J and half an apple every day for me, with a single mom raising two with no support, before "deadbeat dad" existed. Made just enough to not qualify for anything, and back when divorce was punished with high cutoffs for single parents, to dissuade broken homes. And it singles out the students with bags as being "unusual".
In theory, yes, but for most children were to eat zero salt at school, they'd still end up eating more than the recommendation by the end of the day. So, failing "too healthy" wouldn't be a bad thing.
Fat is bad. Carbs are good. Sugar is bad. Protein is good. Fiber is good.
No salt, low-fat high carb diet is one of the healthiest diets there is (so long as the high carbs are fiber, not sugar).
It's the "Starve the Beast" game. If you are selling a sloppy joe with 10g of salt, and a 600 mg salt limit, you cut out all other items and serve 6% of a sloppy joe, then complain about the quantity of the food.
For the same constraints, you could serve a huge meal. It would just have to have fresh fruit and vegies. Those are too fungible, if you sell an apple for $10 each, someone will notice that it's a rip off, but a $10 "sloppy joe meal" that costs $0.10 to make is less identifiably fraud by someone 1000 miles away.
There is no evidence that high-carb no-sugar diets are bad. There are plenty of people who believe in the religion of "no carbs" but that's a religion that's anti science, so "belief" doesn't define fact.
The "carbs are bad" diets are all rigged to be high sugar. A no-sugar high carb diet is consistently the "best" in studies not paid for by those that make/sell food or those who have already declared fat to be healthy.
And sodium isn't bad for you unless you are dehydrated, or have a salt sensitivity. So the older studies didn't correct for this, so they show salt is bad, because it can activate latent sensitivities, not that it's bad for healthy people without sensitivities.
As opposed to the Paleo nuts who claim 6000 calories a day will cause weight loss, while 2000 calories a day will cause weigh gain (so long as the 6000 calories are carb-free, and the 2000 calories is heavy in fiber)?
The food pyramid isn't perfect, but it's better than most diets I've seen people pushing (even here).
You do realize that all milk is skim, right? They skim it, then pasteurize it, then homogenized the cream, then add it back in. So "whole" milk is skim milk with added chemically treated fat that doesn't float to the top.
There's no more "water" in skim than whole. I like unhomogenized whole milk, but the greasy texture of homogenized whole milk is disgusting. So I drink skim, because it's the only non-homogenized milk that's widely available here now.
A company may live on a super thin margin (or even generate a loss),
And people don't?
explain how you will tax revenue and where exactly the money will come from if the revenue minus expenses = a negative number?
The same place where a company with a loss pays their payroll. Gosh, these questions are easy. Did you think about them before you posted them?
Taxing somebody on revenue who generated a loss is called bankrupting them.
Yet, they get property tax assessed, even if they operate at a loss. Their suppliers send them bills, even if they operate at a loss. That's called "bankrupting them". Business that can't make money go out of business. How is this news to you?
You are fascist-right, not libertarian-right. A libertarian wants the smallest government possible. $1 in Head Start cost reduces prison, court and other "necessary" government cost by more than $1. So a small-government libertarian would support giving $1 to Head Start, because that results in a smaller government. But "taxes are theft" libertarians are fascists, who want a large, strong central government controlling every part of our lives. If not, why not spend the $1 in preventative cost?
Like the places that gave away free housing found that it was cheaper than the "traditional" means of dealing with homeless, So why do you not want a small government?
Though, that's the one "good thing" about the Trump plan. The tax plan reduces breaks.
The one thing it, and every other tax plan, gets wrong is classes of income. Unearned income is taxed less than earned income.. Capital gains is a low bracket. And taxes on people exclude corporations, which are legally persons, except for taxing. Tax corporations under the same rules as a single filer, and you'd solve all the revenue problems of the US, though you'd also crash the economy. But setting the income tax rate to 0% for the first $100k, and 1% after, for all persons, natural and artificial, then you'd solve the revenue issues, while not taxing any one person too much. 1% tax (no exemptions) isn't too high, but apply that to artificial persons as well as natural ones, and all the problems go away, and with minimal impact on the economy (other than to boost it, as people will have more and spend more).
Odd, my 5 year old laptop has never been rebuilt, other than the 7 to 10 upgrade, which wasn't a "rebuild" but windows haters could consider it one, so I listed it for full disclosure.
Samsung doesn't have a logo on the phone to display. Most of the others don't claim billions in value in the logo, and there are official accessories with the brand on the case, rather than showing the brand on the phone.
Funny how this is announced in step with the announcement of Windows 10 S, which will only run things from the Windows Store. Seems like the timing is related.
A revenue tax would tax the robots. In fact, a flat tax of 3% of revenue on all legal persons would result in a large decrease in taxes for most people, and would effectively tax robots. It'd fully fund universal health care, which is cheaper than subsidized insurance plans, and fund a UBI as well. Though, it would kick off a 5 year recession before 20 years of unprecedented growth. So it'll never happen.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never moved the goalposts. My definition of "AI" is a computer program that can create an "AI" better than itself. Let every generation run that task for 10,000 generation, and the result will meet everyone's definition of "AI". But no AI has been smart enough to be able to write another AI, let alone one better than itself.
The holy grail of AI is to make an AI that can make an AI smarter than itself. When that happens, 10,000 cycles later we'll have an AI that's effectively smarter than the sum of all humans.
So speech recognition is AI, and Alexa's responses aren't?
Because all the evidence is that the AI services aren't. That they use some form of AI-like tech to generate a portion of a non-AI response doesn't make it AI.
"Unrestricted-calorie diets"? So it's not blind, or double blind, and no control.
The real studies are done in rats, where the calories are counted, measured, and delivered in specific ratios. Double blind, and properly controlled.
But the fad-dies-pushers refuse to do that, because they know it would prove their sham diet to be a sham. So they make up studies that don't actually test the diet, and claim victory.
My favorite are the ones where those on the diet get increased exercise. Though, that's usually hidden far in the "method" and ignored in the published results.
The economy would recover. But the dip that accompanies positive change is remembered much more clearly than the recovery to a much better place that follows 3 years later. That fixes everything. Just not in a short enough time frame for the "next quarter" attention span of voters.
Archie was around, along with multiple spider services. You weren't stuck using AOL. AOL was always just an advertising engine, not a search engine. Gopher had no search engine and was still better than the first few years of Yahoo, as it was semi-hierarchical.
Yes. The same process that gets the fat to distribute evenly in the milk gets it to spread around inside your mouth. That is a greasy film left in your mouth by the homogenization. That you've never noticed doesn't mean it doesn't happen. What magic does your milk have where homogenization distributes fat in water (milk) but not in water (saliva)?
Many others have pointed out that "homogenization" is a mechanical process of pushing cream through a screen to break it down to smaller pieces that don't clump or rise. You can treat cream for homogenization while it's whole milk, or separately. Apparently it's you who doesn't know what it is. Here, I've been told that the process does include an emulsifier that helps keep the separation, which was what I was referring to. Apparently the process here is vastly different than the US.
It appears people disagree more with the implications than the facts. Milk can be made by separating the parts, treating them separately, then mixing them back together. Some places do it that way, some places don't. Apparently, they can't do it here the way they do because in parts of the US Slashdotters live don't do it that way.
Ah, one of the "carb bad" religious nuts. There is no science that supports that position. Every study that comes close is obviously biased for a specific result, and horribly invalid. And no, I haven't read them all, as when every one of them looks the same, there's no reason to keep reading them until they find something. But they never do. The sham studies refuse to compare calories from fat to calories from complex carbs and fiber.
When you have to lie in your study and compare fat to simple sugar, you know you are a fraud, and are only scamming the religious nuts that have already bought into the cult.
I never said anything that could even be considered to conflict with that. Paleo-idiot triggered. Silly snowflake.
As if that's the only alternative to the food pyramid.
It's the one that's been given on Slashdot. Not in the one I was replying to, but in other threads under this article. It's expensive, and it doesn't work.
- idiot.
Nice sig, but you left off any content.
The "canteen" or tuck shop or whatever in the US (and most industrialized nations) have a full cafeteria with menu. About 20% of students take sack lunches. Sack lunch is a sign of upper lower-class. Those too "rich" to have subsidized lunches, but not rich enough to buy lunch. PB&J and half an apple every day for me, with a single mom raising two with no support, before "deadbeat dad" existed. Made just enough to not qualify for anything, and back when divorce was punished with high cutoffs for single parents, to dissuade broken homes. And it singles out the students with bags as being "unusual".
Too little salt kills you.
In theory, yes, but for most children were to eat zero salt at school, they'd still end up eating more than the recommendation by the end of the day. So, failing "too healthy" wouldn't be a bad thing.
Fat is bad. Carbs are good. Sugar is bad. Protein is good. Fiber is good.
No salt, low-fat high carb diet is one of the healthiest diets there is (so long as the high carbs are fiber, not sugar).
It's the "Starve the Beast" game. If you are selling a sloppy joe with 10g of salt, and a 600 mg salt limit, you cut out all other items and serve 6% of a sloppy joe, then complain about the quantity of the food.
For the same constraints, you could serve a huge meal. It would just have to have fresh fruit and vegies. Those are too fungible, if you sell an apple for $10 each, someone will notice that it's a rip off, but a $10 "sloppy joe meal" that costs $0.10 to make is less identifiably fraud by someone 1000 miles away.
There is no evidence that high-carb no-sugar diets are bad. There are plenty of people who believe in the religion of "no carbs" but that's a religion that's anti science, so "belief" doesn't define fact.
The "carbs are bad" diets are all rigged to be high sugar. A no-sugar high carb diet is consistently the "best" in studies not paid for by those that make/sell food or those who have already declared fat to be healthy.
And sodium isn't bad for you unless you are dehydrated, or have a salt sensitivity. So the older studies didn't correct for this, so they show salt is bad, because it can activate latent sensitivities, not that it's bad for healthy people without sensitivities.
As opposed to the Paleo nuts who claim 6000 calories a day will cause weight loss, while 2000 calories a day will cause weigh gain (so long as the 6000 calories are carb-free, and the 2000 calories is heavy in fiber)?
The food pyramid isn't perfect, but it's better than most diets I've seen people pushing (even here).
You do realize that all milk is skim, right? They skim it, then pasteurize it, then homogenized the cream, then add it back in. So "whole" milk is skim milk with added chemically treated fat that doesn't float to the top.
There's no more "water" in skim than whole. I like unhomogenized whole milk, but the greasy texture of homogenized whole milk is disgusting. So I drink skim, because it's the only non-homogenized milk that's widely available here now.
You can't tax revenue.
We do for people. Why not artificial people?
A company may live on a super thin margin (or even generate a loss),
And people don't?
explain how you will tax revenue and where exactly the money will come from if the revenue minus expenses = a negative number?
The same place where a company with a loss pays their payroll. Gosh, these questions are easy. Did you think about them before you posted them?
Taxing somebody on revenue who generated a loss is called bankrupting them.
Yet, they get property tax assessed, even if they operate at a loss. Their suppliers send them bills, even if they operate at a loss. That's called "bankrupting them". Business that can't make money go out of business. How is this news to you?
You are fascist-right, not libertarian-right. A libertarian wants the smallest government possible. $1 in Head Start cost reduces prison, court and other "necessary" government cost by more than $1. So a small-government libertarian would support giving $1 to Head Start, because that results in a smaller government. But "taxes are theft" libertarians are fascists, who want a large, strong central government controlling every part of our lives. If not, why not spend the $1 in preventative cost?
Like the places that gave away free housing found that it was cheaper than the "traditional" means of dealing with homeless, So why do you not want a small government?
Though, that's the one "good thing" about the Trump plan. The tax plan reduces breaks.
The one thing it, and every other tax plan, gets wrong is classes of income. Unearned income is taxed less than earned income.. Capital gains is a low bracket. And taxes on people exclude corporations, which are legally persons, except for taxing. Tax corporations under the same rules as a single filer, and you'd solve all the revenue problems of the US, though you'd also crash the economy. But setting the income tax rate to 0% for the first $100k, and 1% after, for all persons, natural and artificial, then you'd solve the revenue issues, while not taxing any one person too much. 1% tax (no exemptions) isn't too high, but apply that to artificial persons as well as natural ones, and all the problems go away, and with minimal impact on the economy (other than to boost it, as people will have more and spend more).
Odd, my 5 year old laptop has never been rebuilt, other than the 7 to 10 upgrade, which wasn't a "rebuild" but windows haters could consider it one, so I listed it for full disclosure.
Samsung doesn't have a logo on the phone to display. Most of the others don't claim billions in value in the logo, and there are official accessories with the brand on the case, rather than showing the brand on the phone.
Funny how this is announced in step with the announcement of Windows 10 S, which will only run things from the Windows Store. Seems like the timing is related.
A revenue tax would tax the robots. In fact, a flat tax of 3% of revenue on all legal persons would result in a large decrease in taxes for most people, and would effectively tax robots. It'd fully fund universal health care, which is cheaper than subsidized insurance plans, and fund a UBI as well. Though, it would kick off a 5 year recession before 20 years of unprecedented growth. So it'll never happen.