In the end, Clinton won only the true-blue states and nothing else (except Nevada, but that hardly counts). Do you really think Bernie wouldn't have taken them as well? So, at worst, Bernie would have done as well as Clinton.
On the other hand, he would have had a very good chance of taking a rust-belt state like Michigan or Illinois, and that would have been enough to win.
rump wasn't a GOP insider either, and yet he was able to clinch their nomination, even though the party really didn't want him. The GOP is obviously an inherently more stupid institution than the DNC..
As I stated in another post, intent does matter for 18 793 (f) according to the supreme court in Gorin v. United States.
If you read your own reference, you would see that the supreme court upheld the convictions of Gorin and Salich, and rejected their claims that a lack of intent was a mitigating factor.
So, for the last 20 years, Microsoft expanded into the above markets and received widespread acclaim for the products listed.
But not for their core product, namely Windows. The last Windows to receive widespread acclaim was Win 7. Since then, nothing but one disaster after another.
Windows 10 (Metro, 2015): won near-universal acclaim for its UI changes, with the review tagline often being, "This is what Windows 8 should've looked like."
What that means is that the Windows 10 guys finally admitted what a disaster 8.x was, and put back much of Win 7. That doesn't mean that the result was as good as Win 7, let alone better.
Trivial: have two online id's: one called "ILoveAmerica" featuring flattering pictures of Donald Trump, and the other one "DeathToAmerica" showing how you really feel.
They make much poorer returns than funds who have no such restrictions. So are we therefore morally bankrupt as a society to not invest in those companies?
Damn right.
What about tobacco?
As evil as evil gets.
Defence companies (there's an interesting one) - who gets to decide?
a little discomfort in temporary transitioning away from the jobs they had?
If you had ever visited the bombed-out sections of Detroit, you wouldn't call it "a little discomfort". It's utter devastation, and there is nothing temporary about it.
The fact that one quiet town raises a booming industry as another booming industry town rusts out in the path of progress is called growth
Except that the booming city is probably in another country and does not benefit the people in the "rust out" country at all.
Has he done the math as to how much that would cost?
Almost nothing, if the robots are doing almost everything.
Except somebody (probably rich) owns those robots and is paying for their upkeep. Why would they use their robots to benefit you if they don't have to?
Can computers do what humans do? Increasingly yes. That's all there is to it, and trying to fence off intelligence by adhoc redefinitions doesn't get away from that fact.
Well said. The "this problem is solved so it can't be real AI" is just a version of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Think of it this way. Are you training the AI on the SHAPE of, say, a cat and an understanding of 3D space and how it transforms with movement and different viewing angles? No. You're training it on a bunch of pictures of a cat (or translated texts, or game positions or whatever) and hoping that it finds some correlation.
Very true. However, it is a lot easier to get funding for a statistical correlation program if you claim it is "neurally based" because it uses variable names like "numNeurons" and function names like "stimulateSynapse()".
While dualism has been hijacked by religion time and again, it is not a religious idea.
It certainly is, unless you can provide some evidence for a non-physical reality. Of course, evidence in science always comes down to measurements, which are by definition physical.
Slashdot Mirror
In the end, Clinton won only the true-blue states and nothing else (except Nevada, but that hardly counts).
Do you really think Bernie wouldn't have taken them as well?
So, at worst, Bernie would have done as well as Clinton.
On the other hand, he would have had a very good chance of taking a rust-belt state like Michigan or Illinois,
and that would have been enough to win.
rump wasn't a GOP insider either, and yet he was able to clinch their nomination, even though the party really didn't want him. The GOP is obviously an inherently more stupid institution than the DNC..
FTFY.
As I stated in another post, intent does matter for 18 793 (f) according to the supreme court in Gorin v. United States.
If you read your own reference, you would see that the supreme court upheld the convictions
of Gorin and Salich, and rejected their claims that a lack of intent was a mitigating factor.
So, for the last 20 years, Microsoft expanded into the above markets and received widespread acclaim for the products listed.
But not for their core product, namely Windows.
The last Windows to receive widespread acclaim was Win 7. Since then, nothing but one disaster after another.
Windows 10 (Metro, 2015): won near-universal acclaim for its UI changes, with the review tagline often being, "This is what Windows 8 should've looked like."
What that means is that the Windows 10 guys finally admitted what a disaster 8.x was, and put back much of Win 7.
That doesn't mean that the result was as good as Win 7, let alone better.
Trivial: have two online id's: one called "ILoveAmerica" featuring flattering pictures of Donald Trump,
and the other one "DeathToAmerica" showing how you really feel.
And you can still get one like that (Amazon ) for less than $40 on Amazon.
Anybody who coaches sports (e.g. golf swing) could make good use of this.
They make much poorer returns than funds who have no such restrictions. So are we therefore morally bankrupt as a society to not invest in those companies?
Damn right.
What about tobacco?
As evil as evil gets.
Defence companies (there's an interesting one) - who gets to decide?
Decent people. In other words, not you.
Certain parts of the earth have population problems but that's because too many people are congregating in the same places.
Damn straight!
If those lazy bastards would only move to the Sahara desert or to the high arctic, there would be plenty of room.
Then you get turned into Soylent Green to feed everybody else. Win Win!
a little discomfort in temporary transitioning away from the jobs they had?
If you had ever visited the bombed-out sections of Detroit, you wouldn't call it "a little discomfort". It's utter devastation, and there is nothing temporary about it.
The fact that one quiet town raises a booming industry as another booming industry town rusts out in the path of progress is called growth
Except that the booming city is probably in another country and does not benefit the people in the "rust out" country at all.
Well, to pull this off, the workers involved have to make higher wages.
No, the workers don't have to make any more. It's management/shareholders that "have to" make more money, and they will.
Screw the workers.
Has he done the math as to how much that would cost?
Almost nothing, if the robots are doing almost everything.
Except somebody (probably rich) owns those robots and is paying for their upkeep.
Why would they use their robots to benefit you if they don't have to?
Or shoot some cops?
FTFY.
But the US has added an average of about 100k jobs a month
Yeah, and most of them involve the phrase "Do you want fries with that?"
All cost is derived from human labour.
Nonsense.
Cost is derived from supply and demand.
If machine labor is cheaper than human labor, then it's tough tits for the human laborers.
Why is the Apple Watch (and the rest of its competitors) so expensive?
Because people are willing to pay that much. Duh.
I normally find poker painfully dull, but I'd pay to see that.
And no, definitions are not "cute", they are essential.
But non-existent, outside of "Weak AI is stuff we understand" while "Strong AI is stuff we don't yet understand".
Can computers do what humans do? Increasingly yes. That's all there is to it, and trying to fence off intelligence by adhoc redefinitions doesn't get away from that fact.
Well said.
The "this problem is solved so it can't be real AI" is just a version of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
I recommend Bostrom's book "Superintelligence" for a start.
Bostrom is a blow-hard with nothing to back up his wild predictions.
Think of it this way. Are you training the AI on the SHAPE of, say, a cat and an understanding of 3D space and how it transforms with movement and different viewing angles? No. You're training it on a bunch of pictures of a cat (or translated texts, or game positions or whatever) and hoping that it finds some correlation.
Very true.
However, it is a lot easier to get funding for a statistical correlation program if you claim it is
"neurally based" because it uses variable names like "numNeurons"
and function names like "stimulateSynapse()".
While dualism has been hijacked by religion time and again, it is not a religious idea.
It certainly is, unless you can provide some evidence for a non-physical reality.
Of course, evidence in science always comes down to measurements, which are by definition physical.
There is absolutely no reason to believe at this time general AI ("strong AI") will ever become available
It certainly won't, unless someone actually defines the term.