it's not like we have to build AI from the ground up. we have a prototype already. it's called the brain. your brain is just a meat processor. it's a system of cells, interconnections, chemicals, and electric pulses. all of that can be modeled in software, and run a million times faster
If the human brain (and more importantly human consciousness) is just a very big software model, we should be able to duplicate one already, shouldn't we? There is a huge amount of computing power available nowadays, why waste it on trivialities like predicting the weather slightly more accurately?
The only unequivocal point is that they did surrender. If they had truly believed in fighting until the last Japanese person died in a ditch, they would have.
Only 64% of Muslims in France said violence was never justified. Wow! Only 64% - why such a low number? How many Christians in the United States would not support violence? Got to believe it would better than 64%
If you asked a sample of Americans whether violence was never justified to defend themslelves, I imagine a lot less than 64% would agree.
It depends on what question you ask, and how you ask it.
First of all, the law says that these men cannot have guns, espcially fill auto guns. Fat lot of good that law did in this case huh? Get a clue douchebag, people who intend on killing others, be they actual-in-fact mozzie animal terrorists, or be they simple run of the mill criminals, don't really give a shit what the law says, so the acquisition of the firearm is really the least of their crimes.
In Britain, it's even harder than in France to acquire guns. The two psychos who killed Lee Rigby had to run him down in a car and use blades.
You can't stop desperate people murdering other people, but you can certainly make it more difficult for them to commit mass atrocities.
Do you seriously believe that machine guns and high explosives should be available to buy anonymously off the shelf in a supermarket?
Fortunately, the last politicians who have grown up in our hippie days are retiring, and hopefully we will have a more realistic outlook on politics in the years to come. Our left wing parties are growing smaller and smaller every election. There is hope.
they are placing passengers at risk due to no valid license or insurance
People keep saying this, yet I've never seen any evidence it's true. In fact, on the contrary, here in the UK at least, Uber are licensed like any other private hire company. Not to mention the fact that, just about everywhere, running a business without appropriate liability insurance is illegal (and stupid) anyway.
Just because Uber themselves have public liability insurance (and you're right, it would be extraordinary if a business didn't) doesn't mean that an individual driving for Uber is insured to take paying passengers.
They are two totally different things, and my understanding was that drivers don't actually work for Uber, but that Uber act as a middle man between driver and passenger. I hope I'm wrong.
Uber is not a new technology that will make taxi drivers obsolete, it's just a way of circumventing the rules about being a taxi driver and handing the work to amateurs instead.
And the idea that autonomous vehicles will replace taxis and cars within a decade is frankly laughable. Even if self-driving cars were a technically solved problem, the economics do not stack up, unless someone magically finds a way of making them cheap enough.
Governments may occasionally act like the Mafia if they are not subject to democratic control and the rule of law, but businesses definitely will act like the Mafia given no democratic control and the rule of law.
Just because I write in my terms and conditions "any attempt at unauthorised access to my computer systems means I can murder you" does not grant me immunity from the laws against murdering people.
No, they're not. A bunch of billionaires are funding them handsomely, presumably on the basis that if enough laws get broken, everyone will just give up with the rule of law, and revert to a pure laissez faire system. At which point the billionaires will be happy.
There is no other logical explanation for investing so much in a fucking taxi company.
PS what is up with the slashdot layout? There are huge slabs of unlovely grey everywhere, it looks like Day One of a "build yourself a website in 7 days" course.
I don't see that as 'anti-science,' I see it as anti-authority. If you talk to people who are anti-vaccers (it's tough, I know), they will often point to experiments to support their reasoning (naturalnews.com links to all kinds of questionable studies to support its inanity). They merely feel the scientists they trust are more correct than the scientists you trust.
With the exception of those of the religious persuasion, most people do not think of their beliefs as irrational.
Apparently crazed neo-Nazis will quite happily defend their beliefs with apparently rational arguments.
It's also good money
He's coming to Antwerp with his buddy Dawkins the end of January.
Places are 27 euro a pop, the golden circle is 40 euro.
To preach to the choir.
Whereas I'm sure you spend most of your time and money going to lectures by people you hate, with views you despise or find ridiculous?
I have a huge problem with the concept that Atheism is some sort of prerequisite to doing science. Useful or not, religion is a huge part of a lot of people's lives. The current rationalist approach drives very few people from religion but it does drive a lot of people further away from scientific acceptance. The worst part is the rationalists don't see that they are having the exact opposite effect that they desire.
If you're not being "rationalist" you're not doing science. Your argument makes exactly no sense.
Bill Nye has been known to wander off into nutter territory on occasion, lumping all religious folks into the same category as the literal-6,000-year-old-Earth nutters that he opposes.
I don't think anyone who believes in God, Jesus and the Bible is in a position to call someone who takes the very foundation of the Biblical creation myth seriously a nutter.
Im a Christian with a passion for science and I really enjoy watching Neil talk about science, but it gets really cheesy when he makes the occasional snide remark about the Bible or religion when there isnt any hard science backing up that viewpoint.
It is up to people who believe in the Bible (for instance) to provide the "hard science" as to why it should be elevated above any other collection of words.
You think you are being a smart ass, but you seem to have blurred the lines between fact and conjecture.
Yes, the fact is that pretty much all the Anti-Capitalist Scientists in the world who have looked at this are in a giant conspiracy with The Government and the all-powerful Green Lobby. Only a few brave voices in the wilderness (coincidentally funded by oil companies) dare to speak out against this Communist Plot.
Slashdot Mirror
it's not like we have to build AI from the ground up. we have a prototype already. it's called the brain. your brain is just a meat processor. it's a system of cells, interconnections, chemicals, and electric pulses. all of that can be modeled in software, and run a million times faster
If the human brain (and more importantly human consciousness) is just a very big software model, we should be able to duplicate one already, shouldn't we? There is a huge amount of computing power available nowadays, why waste it on trivialities like predicting the weather slightly more accurately?
I hate to break the news to you, but the long term survival rate for all humans is 0%.
The only unequivocal point is that they did surrender. If they had truly believed in fighting until the last Japanese person died in a ditch, they would have.
Only 64% of Muslims in France said violence was never justified. Wow! Only 64% - why such a low number? How many Christians in the United States would not support violence? Got to believe it would better than 64%
If you asked a sample of Americans whether violence was never justified to defend themslelves, I imagine a lot less than 64% would agree.
It depends on what question you ask, and how you ask it.
First of all, the law says that these men cannot have guns, espcially fill auto guns. Fat lot of good that law did in this case huh? Get a clue douchebag, people who intend on killing others, be they actual-in-fact mozzie animal terrorists, or be they simple run of the mill criminals, don't really give a shit what the law says, so the acquisition of the firearm is really the least of their crimes.
In Britain, it's even harder than in France to acquire guns. The two psychos who killed Lee Rigby had to run him down in a car and use blades.
You can't stop desperate people murdering other people, but you can certainly make it more difficult for them to commit mass atrocities.
Do you seriously believe that machine guns and high explosives should be available to buy anonymously off the shelf in a supermarket?
As this wasn't in the US, it's not very likely.
Fortunately, the last politicians who have grown up in our hippie days are retiring, and hopefully we will have a more realistic outlook on politics in the years to come. Our left wing parties are growing smaller and smaller every election. There is hope.
Sieg fucking Heil.
Even given the arbitrary cut off of WW2 you have had ETA, the PIRA, the Balkan conflict and many others.
they are placing passengers at risk due to no valid license or insurance
People keep saying this, yet I've never seen any evidence it's true. In fact, on the contrary, here in the UK at least, Uber are licensed like any other private hire company. Not to mention the fact that, just about everywhere, running a business without appropriate liability insurance is illegal (and stupid) anyway.
Just because Uber themselves have public liability insurance (and you're right, it would be extraordinary if a business didn't) doesn't mean that an individual driving for Uber is insured to take paying passengers.
They are two totally different things, and my understanding was that drivers don't actually work for Uber, but that Uber act as a middle man between driver and passenger. I hope I'm wrong.
And the idea that autonomous vehicles will replace taxis and cars within a decade is frankly laughable. Even if self-driving cars were a technically solved problem, the economics do not stack up, unless someone magically finds a way of making them cheap enough.
Governments may occasionally act like the Mafia if they are not subject to democratic control and the rule of law, but businesses definitely will act like the Mafia given no democratic control and the rule of law.
Just because I write in my terms and conditions "any attempt at unauthorised access to my computer systems means I can murder you" does not grant me immunity from the laws against murdering people.
Well they are worth $40 billion
No, they're not. A bunch of billionaires are funding them handsomely, presumably on the basis that if enough laws get broken, everyone will just give up with the rule of law, and revert to a pure laissez faire system. At which point the billionaires will be happy.
There is no other logical explanation for investing so much in a fucking taxi company.
PS what is up with the slashdot layout? There are huge slabs of unlovely grey everywhere, it looks like Day One of a "build yourself a website in 7 days" course.
Slashdot now looks like a grey pile of shit.
I don't see that as 'anti-science,' I see it as anti-authority. If you talk to people who are anti-vaccers (it's tough, I know), they will often point to experiments to support their reasoning (naturalnews.com links to all kinds of questionable studies to support its inanity). They merely feel the scientists they trust are more correct than the scientists you trust.
With the exception of those of the religious persuasion, most people do not think of their beliefs as irrational.
Apparently crazed neo-Nazis will quite happily defend their beliefs with apparently rational arguments.
It's also good money
He's coming to Antwerp with his buddy Dawkins the end of January.
Places are 27 euro a pop, the golden circle is 40 euro.
To preach to the choir.
Whereas I'm sure you spend most of your time and money going to lectures by people you hate, with views you despise or find ridiculous?
God I hate the banality of modern pop culture
I found that my problems with modern pop culture went away when I stopped interacting with it.
The internet must be a very confusing place for you.
I have a huge problem with the concept that Atheism is some sort of prerequisite to doing science. Useful or not, religion is a huge part of a lot of people's lives. The current rationalist approach drives very few people from religion but it does drive a lot of people further away from scientific acceptance. The worst part is the rationalists don't see that they are having the exact opposite effect that they desire.
If you're not being "rationalist" you're not doing science. Your argument makes exactly no sense.
Ade Edmonson from Bad News.
Bill Nye has been known to wander off into nutter territory on occasion, lumping all religious folks into the same category as the literal-6,000-year-old-Earth nutters that he opposes.
I don't think anyone who believes in God, Jesus and the Bible is in a position to call someone who takes the very foundation of the Biblical creation myth seriously a nutter.
Im a Christian with a passion for science and I really enjoy watching Neil talk about science, but it gets really cheesy when he makes the occasional snide remark about the Bible or religion when there isnt any hard science backing up that viewpoint.
It is up to people who believe in the Bible (for instance) to provide the "hard science" as to why it should be elevated above any other collection of words.
You think you are being a smart ass, but you seem to have blurred the lines between fact and conjecture.
Yes, the fact is that pretty much all the Anti-Capitalist Scientists in the world who have looked at this are in a giant conspiracy with The Government and the all-powerful Green Lobby. Only a few brave voices in the wilderness (coincidentally funded by oil companies) dare to speak out against this Communist Plot.
Your mistake is thinking AGW alarmism is not heavily politically based.
Classic reactionary false equivalence reasoning.
"You're a racist/misogynist/homophobe."
"Yes but there are black racists, misandrists and straight-haters too, so what's the problem?"
It's purpose is clearly to force wireless device manufacturers to use secure data transmission protocols.
I genuinely can't tell whether or not you're joking. Excellent.
What if you want to sniff your own keyboard?
I can only imagine you'd want to do this to see what your wife/kids/cat was using it for.