Re:Hasn't this happened a bunch of times?
on
Turing Test Passed
·
· Score: 1
Yes and that's precisely why none of these bots have really passed the Turing test. None of them can carry on an interesting and meaningful conversation on many different subjects in a way humans can.
Please let me know when AI can appropriately handle all of the following situations:
- Jokes - Riddles - Insults - Sarcasm - Flirting - Arguments on controversial topics of current interest
And it has to pose as a normal adult in its own native language, not a 13 year-old Ukrainian.
I'm not saying that the people negotiating have to do all their talk in public because that would be ridiculous. But the terms of the deal have to be made public during the negotiations. When a new law is proposed there are certainly lots of back room deals but you get at least a couple of public readings and, if the law has any significant impact, lots of media attention too (at least here in Europe that's the norm). Where I live, a law adopted in a hurry or in a context of dubious public review would get struck down by the Constitutional Court. A treaty should be no different.
We must force our governments to be more transparent. IMO, it should be a constitutional principle that all law must be negotiated in public. If history has tought us one thing is that secret negotiations lead to horrible results. For example, one of the most despicable treaties in history, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, was the result of such secret negotiations.
Why not get rid of politicians altogether? I mean, 200 years ago it was not feasible to get everyone in one place to pass laws but with today's technology it is actually possible to have direct democracy. That has some problems too but at least it becomes impossible to lobby. If that's too hard then at least make it so that if a petition gets X signatures then a referendum must be held on the question and the results are legally binding. That would go a long way to fix the system.
Ironically, the referendum that made Ukraine an independent country resulted in a 90+ percent yes vote with even Crimea voting in favor. At the time, no one disputed the results. It just shows how easily the populace is manipulated.
So how would you feel if the Russians tried to annex Alaska? Maybe you don't care now because it seems remote but ignoring the problem will not make it go away.
The size of newborn calves is about the same (~90 kg). The gestation period, which has been deduced from isotopic analysis of newborn teeth is also very similar (21-22 months).
It doesn't matter that the donor is dead. The process of cloning involves taking out DNA and inserting it into another cell. All that matters is that enough DNA can be collected for a complete organism. Freezing is completely irrelevant as even human embryos used for in-vitro fertilization are routinely frozen.
We have been able to clone several species already. That's not the problem. The problem is that you need a surrogate mother for the embryo and the closest we have is the African elephant, which separated from the mammoth a long time ago. From TFA it seems they are already working on cross-species clones but they are still a long way off.
The average incandescent bulb lasts about 1000 hours. Currently, the average cost per kilowatt hour is 12 cents in this country. So a 100 watt bulb run for 1000 hours costs about $1.20 in electricity. The bulbs cost about $0.57 each. An equivalent LED bulb costs $36 per, and consumes only 13% of the energy used by an incandescent. They say these will last approximately 50,000 hours.
Except your math is off by a factor of 10. 100 watt is 0.1 kW, times 1000 hours gives 100 kWh, which is $12 dollars of electricity not $1.20. That changes pretty much everything.
I agree about the toxic waste stuff, but if you're worried mostly about energy (and that's what policy mostly focuses on) then incandescents don't make sense.
I get what you're saying but the political centralization of the USA is also the reason for its incredible stability over the past century. Europe learned that lesson only after nearly wiping itself out.
The thing is, you can't just keep an area stable just by doing nothing. If you want an area to remain relatively stable and prosperous you need to make sure all parts develop at roughly the same rate. Hence, the idea of a common economy with a common currency and free movement of people and goods. But if you're going to have a common economy then you also need to harmonize your fiscal policy or else the debts of small states that live above their means risk destabilizing your whole economy. But that also means that you need to put restrictions over spending. The inescapable consequence of all of this is that the union is going to have more and more say over what the individual states can do and you'll end up with a centralized government.
Still, as grim as it sounds it's still way better than endlessly warring states.
Wake up people. This "currency" is never going to have anything close to wide adoption. The inability to charge back is the #1 reason that prevents any consumer from perceiving it as a safe currency against vendor fraud.
Do you feel the same way about cash?
With cash I can see/touch the goods I'm buying before paying for them. I have to physically meet the person selling the goods. Unless I'm paying for something illegal there's little chance of getting screwed over because it would be too risky for the other party.
Chinese (Mandarin to be precise) is the current language fad. I remember when about a decade ago everyone was into Japanese and before that there was Russian. There are many good reasons to learn foreign languages from an early age but frankly the whole "economic relationships" argument is BS. The truth is that the current world lingua franca for business is English and it's going to stay that way for a while.
We just need to handle it sensibly. Put a 25 mile exclusion zone around them. Site them away from centres of population.
In the US maybe, but in Europe this is hard to do as population density is pretty high everywhere except way out in the North. In a country like Germany you won't find a large mostly empty area far from any population. But if you ask me I'd rather live next to a nuclear reactor than next to a coal power plant.
Dear Lover of 1984-Style Government (aka, a liberal):
I'm always amazed how distorted the political name-calling has gotten. White means black and black means white. From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liberal:
liberal
Etymology
From Old French liberal < Latin liberalis ("befitting a freeman") < liber ("free").
1. (now rare except in phrases) Pertaining to those arts and sciences whose study was considered "worthy of a free man" (as opposed to servile, mechanical); worthy, befitting a gentleman.
2. Generous, bountiful.
3. Generous in quantity, abundant.
4. (obsolete) Unrestrained, licentious.
5. Free from prejudice or narrow-mindedness; open-minded, open to new ideas, willing to depart from established opinions, conventions etc.; permissive.
6. (politics) Open to political or social changes and reforms in favour of increased freedom or democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and that's precisely why none of these bots have really passed the Turing test. None of them can carry on an interesting and meaningful conversation on many different subjects in a way humans can.
Please let me know when AI can appropriately handle all of the following situations:
- Jokes
- Riddles
- Insults
- Sarcasm
- Flirting
- Arguments on controversial topics of current interest
And it has to pose as a normal adult in its own native language, not a 13 year-old Ukrainian.
I'm not saying that the people negotiating have to do all their talk in public because that would be ridiculous. But the terms of the deal have to be made public during the negotiations. When a new law is proposed there are certainly lots of back room deals but you get at least a couple of public readings and, if the law has any significant impact, lots of media attention too (at least here in Europe that's the norm). Where I live, a law adopted in a hurry or in a context of dubious public review would get struck down by the Constitutional Court. A treaty should be no different.
We must force our governments to be more transparent. IMO, it should be a constitutional principle that all law must be negotiated in public. If history has tought us one thing is that secret negotiations lead to horrible results. For example, one of the most despicable treaties in history, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, was the result of such secret negotiations.
Why not get rid of politicians altogether? I mean, 200 years ago it was not feasible to get everyone in one place to pass laws but with today's technology it is actually possible to have direct democracy. That has some problems too but at least it becomes impossible to lobby. If that's too hard then at least make it so that if a petition gets X signatures then a referendum must be held on the question and the results are legally binding. That would go a long way to fix the system.
If they are advanced enough to travel here then they've had their own version of the Kepler telescope for 500 years
It does not follow.
But one day all the stars will go out and the universe will be a cold dark place and all of this will have been for nothing anyway...
A depressing thought.
And it's been drunk by at least one dinosaur too.
No democratic vote results in 90+ percent.
Ironically, the referendum that made Ukraine an independent country resulted in a 90+ percent yes vote with even Crimea voting in favor. At the time, no one disputed the results. It just shows how easily the populace is manipulated.
So how would you feel if the Russians tried to annex Alaska? Maybe you don't care now because it seems remote but ignoring the problem will not make it go away.
The size of newborn calves is about the same (~90 kg). The gestation period, which has been deduced from isotopic analysis of newborn teeth is also very similar (21-22 months).
It doesn't matter that the donor is dead. The process of cloning involves taking out DNA and inserting it into another cell. All that matters is that enough DNA can be collected for a complete organism. Freezing is completely irrelevant as even human embryos used for in-vitro fertilization are routinely frozen.
We have been able to clone several species already. That's not the problem. The problem is that you need a surrogate mother for the embryo and the closest we have is the African elephant, which separated from the mammoth a long time ago. From TFA it seems they are already working on cross-species clones but they are still a long way off.
May I ask which country in Eastern Europe it was? I'm pretty sure in the EU that is completely illegal.
The average incandescent bulb lasts about 1000 hours. Currently, the average cost per kilowatt hour is 12 cents in this country. So a 100 watt bulb run for 1000 hours costs about $1.20 in electricity. The bulbs cost about $0.57 each. An equivalent LED bulb costs $36 per, and consumes only 13% of the energy used by an incandescent. They say these will last approximately 50,000 hours.
Except your math is off by a factor of 10. 100 watt is 0.1 kW, times 1000 hours gives 100 kWh, which is $12 dollars of electricity not $1.20. That changes pretty much everything.
I agree about the toxic waste stuff, but if you're worried mostly about energy (and that's what policy mostly focuses on) then incandescents don't make sense.
How ignorant. What the fuck does psychopathy have to do with schizophrenia?
Except for that period when a large part of it tried to seceed.
I get what you're saying but the political centralization of the USA is also the reason for its incredible stability over the past century. Europe learned that lesson only after nearly wiping itself out.
The thing is, you can't just keep an area stable just by doing nothing. If you want an area to remain relatively stable and prosperous you need to make sure all parts develop at roughly the same rate. Hence, the idea of a common economy with a common currency and free movement of people and goods. But if you're going to have a common economy then you also need to harmonize your fiscal policy or else the debts of small states that live above their means risk destabilizing your whole economy. But that also means that you need to put restrictions over spending. The inescapable consequence of all of this is that the union is going to have more and more say over what the individual states can do and you'll end up with a centralized government.
Still, as grim as it sounds it's still way better than endlessly warring states.
Wake up people. This "currency" is never going to have anything close to wide adoption. The inability to charge back is the #1 reason that prevents any consumer from perceiving it as a safe currency against vendor fraud.
Do you feel the same way about cash?
With cash I can see/touch the goods I'm buying before paying for them. I have to physically meet the person selling the goods. Unless I'm paying for something illegal there's little chance of getting screwed over because it would be too risky for the other party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
Chinese (Mandarin to be precise) is the current language fad. I remember when about a decade ago everyone was into Japanese and before that there was Russian. There are many good reasons to learn foreign languages from an early age but frankly the whole "economic relationships" argument is BS. The truth is that the current world lingua franca for business is English and it's going to stay that way for a while.
The virus ate my homework!
I agree with your post in general, except:
We just need to handle it sensibly. Put a 25 mile exclusion zone around them. Site them away from centres of population.
In the US maybe, but in Europe this is hard to do as population density is pretty high everywhere except way out in the North. In a country like Germany you won't find a large mostly empty area far from any population. But if you ask me I'd rather live next to a nuclear reactor than next to a coal power plant.
Um... in case you weren't aware Chernobyl was run by the Soviet Union and certainly not driven by profit.
Not everyone likes to carry that 1000+ page brick with them on a bus/train/airplane. Pros and cons like everything in life...
Dear Lover of 1984-Style Government (aka, a liberal):
I'm always amazed how distorted the political name-calling has gotten. White means black and black means white. From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liberal:
liberal
Etymology
From Old French liberal < Latin liberalis ("befitting a freeman") < liber ("free").
1. (now rare except in phrases) Pertaining to those arts and sciences whose study was considered "worthy of a free man" (as opposed to servile, mechanical); worthy, befitting a gentleman.
2. Generous, bountiful.
3. Generous in quantity, abundant.
4. (obsolete) Unrestrained, licentious.
5. Free from prejudice or narrow-mindedness; open-minded, open to new ideas, willing to depart from established opinions, conventions etc.; permissive.
6. (politics) Open to political or social changes and reforms in favour of increased freedom or democracy.