I don't see this as a straw man argument, rather an example of real behavioral patterns.
I would not have bid anyone to go back to their prostitute, but we have all heard the phrase 'water seeks it's own level', or 'birds of a feather, flock together'. Participation in one of these activities is a reliable indicator of the quality of personal associations and generally serves as an accurate profile of the lawless demographic.
If you're not shy about hiding your vices, how much worse are your secrets?
There just is no mathematical model that can predict this. There is no algorithm. This is not AI. I can't say this often or strenuously enough. This is not even a failed AI, it's a never was AI. For AI to be AI there has to be I and we are nowhere near that. Nowhere near hard AI. We are nowhere near soft AI. We have some "expert systems" which are basically just large databases with a sort of dichotomous key on when to select different outcomes, that will likely be able to interact with natural language soon. This isn't even close to AI. Robots and AI are huge buzzwords today. You have every no name researcher out there trying to get noticed by inventing moral dilemmas involving AI then proposing solutions. You have stupid companies willing to risk money on betting prediction AI, which is nowhere near even as good as what a person and a spreadsheet can do. Both of these things make uninformed people start to think, oh, AI is right around the corner. It's not. We are a century away from hard AI, if ever.
I Agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly.
More to the subject of betting on horse races though, it doesn't matter how expert or intelligent a system is. If you aren't looking at the correct metrics for evaluating a Horse's ability to win the results will always be garbage.
My father used to be my beard when I was a child and I was given small allotment to bet and I usually did pretty good. When asked how I chose the horses my response ended up getting me banned from going ever again. I told him I just chose the horse that looked the most 'Sexy' in the paddock.
As noted about AI, there's no amount of intelligence that quantify what I feel is an instinctual observation.
Obviously people can care about more than one civil right at a time. Your assumption was that people were only believing in the same *set* of civil rights.
It's more like a passive MRI if the logarithm and device sensitivity could be dialed in just right.
Whether screening for disease at the hospital, scanning for weapons at the airport or in public or looking through walls to see people making drugs or bombs it could be useful. Miniaturized enough this could be a precursor to a star-trek tricorder.
Everything since has been an attempt to educate you on how not to be an ass in public.
There's no need to take this upon yourself. The facts that have been propagated by the entertainment industry does not match actual observations. I am sorry if that makes you uncomfortable but you can't wish away reality by calling people names. Real observations don't care for politics.
Now enough of this. You patently have nothing constructive to add.
You're not getting it. It takes energy to do this. In one form or another. Electricity has to be generated for the heating elements to get hot enough to create charcoal, or something has to be burned near enough to make it hot.
Even then it's pointless as the process to make charcoal to begin with requires an atmosphere starved environment. There's no CO2 to absorb, and produces other harmful elements.
They mean well, but they are just as ignorant as the fat cat paying their salaries. In the meantime I am certain someone has something to *sell* you to save the planet.
Show me where I did this? >Continue to run around as though the sky is falling. you're going to be a nuisance one way or another anyways.
Speaking in generalizations here. Not a *personal* ( ad-hominem ) attack.
Maybe, or maybe people just don't like it when you act like an arrogant, condescending jackass. Especially when you're acting like that and unequivocally wrong at the same time. Free speech means the government doesn't interfere with your right to say what you like, it doesn't mean people have to like you or the odious things that you post. People can like free speech and still think you're an overbearing, know-nothing ass who they'd rather not associate with.
Escalating beyond what I had mentioned as a generalization.
It'd be nice if people who believe that also thought they had a duty to use that right responsibly. All too often I see verbal bullies hiding behind "free speech" as shield from the predictable consequences of the offensive things they say.
Pot, meet kettle. A typical defense used by spin doctors in the liberal camp.
From your track record, you probably are. In fact, I'd say in this case you've layered incorrect opinions so deep, you probably need professional help to come back to terms with reality.
Appeal to authority. *Yawn*
If you can't understand the difference between behaviour and character, how can we do anything but doubt the truth of your (biased) observations?
Loaded Question, and an ad-hominem attack.
Do you have anything new to bring to the debate or will you finally concede your defeat through continued attempts on my character / behaviour?
Actually, it's mostly you who appears to have lost the ability to think critically (if you ever had it). Simply put, If you were able to think critically you wouldn't have resorted to personal attacks when I told you that your anecdotal story doesn't back up the position that you claimed it did
Show me where I did this? Sure didn't stop you from escalating.
Free speech means the government doesn't interfere with your right to say what you like, it doesn't mean people have to like you or the odious things that you post. People can like free speech and still think you're an overbearing, know-nothing ass who they'd rather not associate with.
You are correct and suffice it to say my opinion of your opinion is of the same low esteem. The line is drawn in regards to free speech when those domestic terrorists start using force to exert their will outside of the physical protections provided by law. This is our right. You don't have to like my opinion, I don't have to like yours. But neither of us is allowed to use force to coerce the other to our way of thinking or beat our opponent into submission.
We all have the right to say what we want without fear of physical violence. Freedom of speech died first on the Internet, and now there's fascist groups like antifa trying to quell opinions they don't like by using terrorist tactics of oppression. People who broke down because the words trump 2016 were chalked on the sidewalks are now attacking anyone that disagrees with them. This fits the tried and true profiles of mental disorder, but I could be wrong.
You can attempt to attack my character all you want, call me names etc, it won't change the truth of my observations.
Either way, we have strayed far from the topic and this is just another dead horse we're beating.
Then it's NOT going to happen and will end up in a landfill.
Bio Diesel can't produce enough to supply the current demand
If there were refineries setup to do it at scale then it could But I am not talking about that. I am talking about an individuals ability to create biofuel themselves. Without a corporate strangle-hold on the technology and availability.
If you want to reduce the temps, bring up well water depths and in general improve the planet, PLANT MORE TREES and stop being such an advocate of consumerism.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see this as a straw man argument, rather an example of real behavioral patterns.
I would not have bid anyone to go back to their prostitute, but we have all heard the phrase 'water seeks it's own level', or 'birds of a feather, flock together'. Participation in one of these activities is a reliable indicator of the quality of personal associations and generally serves as an accurate profile of the lawless demographic.
If you're not shy about hiding your vices, how much worse are your secrets?
Overall, as an adult with kids of my own, I have to question the moral quality of a man that takes a kid to the races to begin with.
It was a rough time anyways.
C'est la vie.
There just is no mathematical model that can predict this. There is no algorithm. This is not AI. I can't say this often or strenuously enough. This is not even a failed AI, it's a never was AI. For AI to be AI there has to be I and we are nowhere near that. Nowhere near hard AI. We are nowhere near soft AI. We have some "expert systems" which are basically just large databases with a sort of dichotomous key on when to select different outcomes, that will likely be able to interact with natural language soon. This isn't even close to AI. Robots and AI are huge buzzwords today. You have every no name researcher out there trying to get noticed by inventing moral dilemmas involving AI then proposing solutions. You have stupid companies willing to risk money on betting prediction AI, which is nowhere near even as good as what a person and a spreadsheet can do. Both of these things make uninformed people start to think, oh, AI is right around the corner. It's not. We are a century away from hard AI, if ever.
I Agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly.
More to the subject of betting on horse races though, it doesn't matter how expert or intelligent a system is. If you aren't looking at the correct metrics for evaluating a Horse's ability to win the results will always be garbage.
My father used to be my beard when I was a child and I was given small allotment to bet and I usually did pretty good. When asked how I chose the horses my response ended up getting me banned from going ever again. I told him I just chose the horse that looked the most 'Sexy' in the paddock.
As noted about AI, there's no amount of intelligence that quantify what I feel is an instinctual observation.
You misunderstand.
Obviously people can care about more than one civil right at a time. Your assumption was that people were only believing in the same *set* of civil rights.
Those of us objecting to this violation of 5th are the same people that objected to the mass surveillance.
So you hope. I doubt you can prove that assumption.
LOL. I could argue the same for you. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
*Rolls Eyes*
Why are you still here?
Reading through my past posts and quoting me is more than a little creepy.
You lost, and we both have better things to do with our time.
Seriously, it's time to let it go.
'Diversity' taken out of the equation the statement is true.
That cage would be robbed in very short order.
It's more like a passive MRI if the logarithm and device sensitivity could be dialed in just right.
Whether screening for disease at the hospital, scanning for weapons at the airport or in public or looking through walls to see people making drugs or bombs it could be useful. Miniaturized enough this could be a precursor to a star-trek tricorder.
There are real possibilities here.
that I just can't stop
I expected you were trolling but thanks for confirming.
Not taking the bait. You're not going to spin this around.
We're done here.
~ Good Day.
Neither is more consumerism.
Everything since has been an attempt to educate you on how not to be an ass in public.
There's no need to take this upon yourself. The facts that have been propagated by the entertainment industry does not match actual observations. I am sorry if that makes you uncomfortable but you can't wish away reality by calling people names. Real observations don't care for politics.
Now enough of this. You patently have nothing constructive to add.
~ Good Day.
you tree hugger.
Most Interesting.
Your point is imaginary.
No, but it *does* keep the cops from patrolling your residences unless there's a call.
Says the guy who never planted enough trees to even out his CO2 footprint even for a couple of decades.
California Conservation Corps 1990/91 Also certified in Landscape Construction and planted / landscaped for 5 years after that.
*Suck it*
to sequester the CO2 in the trees
You're not getting it. It takes energy to do this. In one form or another. Electricity has to be generated for the heating elements to get hot enough to create charcoal, or something has to be burned near enough to make it hot.
Even then it's pointless as the process to make charcoal to begin with requires an atmosphere starved environment. There's no CO2 to absorb, and produces other harmful elements.
They mean well, but they are just as ignorant as the fat cat paying their salaries. In the meantime I am certain someone has something to *sell* you to save the planet.
http://www.customs.go.jp/ccl/e...
https://www.reddit.com/r/asksc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
.
(*)> THIS IS WHY GETTING YOUR SCIENCE FROM THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY IS BAD (*)
Fitbit says you died, time to delete the crypto keys to the computer.
Fitbit says you died, time to delete my browser history, porn folder, and Google account.
*Sigh*
Show me where I did this?
>Continue to run around as though the sky is falling. you're going to be a nuisance one way or another anyways.
Speaking in generalizations here. Not a *personal* ( ad-hominem ) attack.
Maybe, or maybe people just don't like it when you act like an arrogant, condescending jackass. Especially when you're acting like that and unequivocally wrong at the same time. Free speech means the government doesn't interfere with your right to say what you like, it doesn't mean people have to like you or the odious things that you post. People can like free speech and still think you're an overbearing, know-nothing ass who they'd rather not associate with.
Escalating beyond what I had mentioned as a generalization.
It'd be nice if people who believe that also thought they had a duty to use that right responsibly. All too often I see verbal bullies hiding behind "free speech" as shield from the predictable consequences of the offensive things they say.
Pot, meet kettle. A typical defense used by spin doctors in the liberal camp.
From your track record, you probably are. In fact, I'd say in this case you've layered incorrect opinions so deep, you probably need professional help to come back to terms with reality.
Appeal to authority. *Yawn*
If you can't understand the difference between behaviour and character, how can we do anything but doubt the truth of your (biased) observations?
Loaded Question, and an ad-hominem attack.
Do you have anything new to bring to the debate or will you finally concede your defeat through continued attempts on my character / behaviour?
That heat is easily provided by solar power.
Says someone that's never done it.
Actually, it's mostly you who appears to have lost the ability to think critically (if you ever had it). Simply put, If you were able to think critically you wouldn't have resorted to personal attacks when I told you that your anecdotal story doesn't back up the position that you claimed it did
Show me where I did this? Sure didn't stop you from escalating.
Free speech means the government doesn't interfere with your right to say what you like, it doesn't mean people have to like you or the odious things that you post. People can like free speech and still think you're an overbearing, know-nothing ass who they'd rather not associate with.
You are correct and suffice it to say my opinion of your opinion is of the same low esteem. The line is drawn in regards to free speech when those domestic terrorists start using force to exert their will outside of the physical protections provided by law. This is our right. You don't have to like my opinion, I don't have to like yours. But neither of us is allowed to use force to coerce the other to our way of thinking or beat our opponent into submission.
We all have the right to say what we want without fear of physical violence. Freedom of speech died first on the Internet, and now there's fascist groups like antifa trying to quell opinions they don't like by using terrorist tactics of oppression. People who broke down because the words trump 2016 were chalked on the sidewalks are now attacking anyone that disagrees with them. This fits the tried and true profiles of mental disorder, but I could be wrong.
You can attempt to attack my character all you want, call me names etc, it won't change the truth of my observations.
Either way, we have strayed far from the topic and this is just another dead horse we're beating.
Old news. There's other options out there that are already certified:
http://www.popularmechanics.co...
Economically its not viable
Then it's NOT going to happen and will end up in a landfill.
Bio Diesel can't produce enough to supply the current demand
If there were refineries setup to do it at scale then it could But I am not talking about that. I am talking about an individuals ability to create biofuel themselves. Without a corporate strangle-hold on the technology and availability.
If you want to reduce the temps, bring up well water depths and in general improve the planet, PLANT MORE TREES and stop being such an advocate of consumerism.