I couldn't find a more recent article, but at the end it mentions that this AI came up with a formula for cellular metabolism. It is my understanding that this formula has been tested to be valid, but no human scientists understands what the formula means yet.
On the Republican side, one plank states "We oppose the creation of any new race-based governments within the United States." Make an argument for a race-based government. Go ahead, try.
I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean, but if they oppose the creation of four dimensional three headed goats with frog legs, it would be just as relevant. Well, I suppose someone might actually be working on a design for the goats.
It's true that it is internally self-consistent. That doesn't mean it comes anywhere close to matching the way the real world actually works. As many people have pointed out, it is similar to Marxism in this regard.
In network operations, priority is a very specific concept.
So you admit that you are arguing over semantics. Most of us don't care which concept or method is used. We only care what the end result is. And the end result is they paid, and now their traffic gets there faster than the people who didn't pay.
Evolution/adaptation does not occur within a single organism. If you include that in the definition, then a parent and child combined might be "life", but each of them separately would never qualify. That doesn't really make sense.
There are cognitive differences between any two men you might select too. To what grouping will you attribute those?
There are also many cognitive tasks where the range of difference within a gender is greater than the range of difference between genders. Given that, in what way is it useful to attribute difference to gender (or other grouping, for that matter)?
I'm having trouble following this argument, but since it's been rated as "+5 Insightful" I suppose there's supposed to be some truth here.
Hahaha, it's funny that you think there is a correlation between "Insightful" and "factually true" on Slashdot. Or for conservatives in general, who these days seem to rarely be swayed by mere facts.
I'm tired of this phony either or dichotomy. Capitalism is a tool. Socialism is a tool. The false dichotomy leads to people allowing the tools to dictate how they are used, instead of the other way around. Add too the old adage about the man whose only tool is a hammer.
Would you believe that not everyone has, or even wants, a data plan on their phone?
I'm not worried about cloud storage, but rather about how a cloud client would work in environments where you have no ability to install a client, browser plugin, or other software. Or have any control over what version of java is on the system you are using. Or any of the other things that could contribute to such a system just not being able to work where you happen to be at the moment.
Password manager tools are only useful when you are logging in from your own device. What do you do when you need to hop on a friend's computer, or the one at the public library? Or are there cloud based password managers out there (and if so... that just raises further questions).
You are completely right that this is a complex issue with more questions than answers, but making IQ the qualifier for which organisms (and just to add to the complexity, collection of organisms would be more accurate) are "persons" would remove that designation from a large number who currently hold it.
One of these days, we are going to figure out that intelligence != human intelligence. Who knows, maybe it'll be before the alien overlords who haven't learned their equivalent show up?
Actually you only need to pear the population down by about 20 million. The top 2% of the world's population consume something like 90-95% of the resources, they are extremely expensive to have around. Remove them and everyone's standard of living jumps significantly.
Except standard of living = energy consumption (or nearly so). So removing the top 2% to increase someone else's standard of living doesn't solve the problem, it just changes who is causing it.
Go to weather.com or accuweather.com and check the hourly forecast. For me, it is almost always spot on. Forecast for tomorrow? I'd say accuracy is much better than 80%. Forecast further out than that? Usually pretty good, again seems better than 80% accurate from what I can tell.
Not sure what year you are living in that weather forecasts are still so poor.
I don't know your personal situation, but most likely you aren't obligated to read every article on Slashdot. Don't like this topic? Go read a different one.
Not only that, but you do know how they decided what would be considered a war crime and what would not be considered a war crime, right? (Hint: it was "If we (i.e., the winning side) did it, it wasn't a war crime")
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.theguardian.com/sci...
I couldn't find a more recent article, but at the end it mentions that this AI came up with a formula for cellular metabolism. It is my understanding that this formula has been tested to be valid, but no human scientists understands what the formula means yet.
You have only to look at the jungle compared to that arctic to realize that...
Unless you also compare the jungle to, say, the Sahara.
On the Republican side, one plank states "We oppose the creation of any new race-based governments within the United States." Make an argument for a race-based government. Go ahead, try.
I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean, but if they oppose the creation of four dimensional three headed goats with frog legs, it would be just as relevant. Well, I suppose someone might actually be working on a design for the goats.
It's true that it is internally self-consistent. That doesn't mean it comes anywhere close to matching the way the real world actually works. As many people have pointed out, it is similar to Marxism in this regard.
In network operations, priority is a very specific concept.
So you admit that you are arguing over semantics.
Most of us don't care which concept or method is used. We only care what the end result is. And the end result is they paid, and now their traffic gets there faster than the people who didn't pay.
It will be interesting to see the Republican controlled congress debate military funding for a problem they deny the existence of.
Bad analogy. An individual organism can exhibit social behavior, but it cannot evolve.
Evolution/adaptation does not occur within a single organism. If you include that in the definition, then a parent and child combined might be "life", but each of them separately would never qualify. That doesn't really make sense.
You could say the same thing about the data stored on an erased hard disk. The data isn't gone, it's just in an indeterminate state.
Saying that's not how it works implies you know how it works.
That's not how logic works.
... there just not enough jobs for everyone...
You're conflating a specific unspecified job with a job in general.
Unless magically the number of specific unspecified jobs is larger than the number of jobs, I really don't think he is.
There are cognitive differences between any two men you might select too. To what grouping will you attribute those?
There are also many cognitive tasks where the range of difference within a gender is greater than the range of difference between genders. Given that, in what way is it useful to attribute difference to gender (or other grouping, for that matter)?
Because "white" isn't an ethnicity, it's the lack of one. You are probably confused because you think color = race.
I'm having trouble following this argument, but since it's been rated as "+5 Insightful" I suppose there's supposed to be some truth here.
Hahaha, it's funny that you think there is a correlation between "Insightful" and "factually true" on Slashdot. Or for conservatives in general, who these days seem to rarely be swayed by mere facts.
I'm tired of this phony either or dichotomy. Capitalism is a tool. Socialism is a tool. The false dichotomy leads to people allowing the tools to dictate how they are used, instead of the other way around. Add too the old adage about the man whose only tool is a hammer.
Yep, that's the current system. Of course, since 1% of the people have 90% of the money, most likely your vote doesn't count for much.
Would you believe that not everyone has, or even wants, a data plan on their phone?
I'm not worried about cloud storage, but rather about how a cloud client would work in environments where you have no ability to install a client, browser plugin, or other software. Or have any control over what version of java is on the system you are using. Or any of the other things that could contribute to such a system just not being able to work where you happen to be at the moment.
Password manager tools are only useful when you are logging in from your own device. What do you do when you need to hop on a friend's computer, or the one at the public library? Or are there cloud based password managers out there (and if so... that just raises further questions).
You are completely right that this is a complex issue with more questions than answers, but making IQ the qualifier for which organisms (and just to add to the complexity, collection of organisms would be more accurate) are "persons" would remove that designation from a large number who currently hold it.
There are lots of humans you can't legally marry. They pretty much all have one thing in common: they can't legally give consent.
Also, you really shouldn't look at your sister that way.
One of these days, we are going to figure out that intelligence != human intelligence. Who knows, maybe it'll be before the alien overlords who haven't learned their equivalent show up?
Actually you only need to pear the population down by about 20 million. The top 2% of the world's population consume something like 90-95% of the resources, they are extremely expensive to have around. Remove them and everyone's standard of living jumps significantly.
Except standard of living = energy consumption (or nearly so). So removing the top 2% to increase someone else's standard of living doesn't solve the problem, it just changes who is causing it.
Go to weather.com or accuweather.com and check the hourly forecast. For me, it is almost always spot on. Forecast for tomorrow? I'd say accuracy is much better than 80%. Forecast further out than that? Usually pretty good, again seems better than 80% accurate from what I can tell.
Not sure what year you are living in that weather forecasts are still so poor.
I don't know your personal situation, but most likely you aren't obligated to read every article on Slashdot. Don't like this topic? Go read a different one.
Not only that, but you do know how they decided what would be considered a war crime and what would not be considered a war crime, right? (Hint: it was "If we (i.e., the winning side) did it, it wasn't a war crime")