Trust me, writing the check to the IRS was the hardest thing I've ever done.
LOL, how's that supposed to be something hard to brag about? The hardest I've done was working at SubWay with a bunch of Chinese immigrants. We can change places anytime you want. I still only hear whining. Make it easy on yourself and just accept the fact that you're not entitled to 100% of the money you earn, a part of it is *meant* for the taxes. If your taxes were to go down so would your salary (assuming you have a salary, for the sake of relevance since most people do even the rich ones let's assume you do too).
The least you could do is say "thanks" you fucking peasant.
Suck my dick, I live in Europe.
Only if you think life is about eating Hot Pockets while watching NASCAR. I have bigger plans than that.
So do people who make less money than you. Just look at me, I make $15,000 and I started my one-man company and now looking to put more people on the payroll. Everything you said in favour of you paying less taxes applies ten times more to poorer people like me. At the end of the day there's a certain amount of taxes that the state needs to collect, and what I can pay based on what I earn isn't much anyways. Would you have me go from eating frozen Tesco Value food down to eating nothing but noodles and rice just so you can feel better about paying the same amount in taxes as you do now?
By the way, you earn like a net third of a million a year and you're talking about eating hot pockets? If I earned a tenth of that I'd eat smoked salmon every couple of days.
Not really any need for any arguments, countries need money to run, rich people have more money plus can be safely relieved of more of it without it to become a real problem to them, therefore more is taken there. Simple as that. And no one cares about the whiners or what they have to whine about. To them society says "suck my collective dick, either pay your taxes, gfto the country or go to jail".
Besides, income taxation in the USA currently ranges from 10% to 35%, that's hardly a huge difference, whereas in the 1950s it reached as high as 22% to 92%. When put into perspective, it seems pretty faggotic to complain that the richest (who earn more than $372,951) must pay proportionally 3.5 times more than the poorest who earn $8,350 or less. I mean what do you want, take $2,000 more away from someone who makes $8,000 just so it feels 'fair' to someone who makes $400,000 when the gain to the state is so small? If you earn $400,000 you can do away with $140,000, if you earn $8,000 it's much harder to be taken $3,000, mostly when that's so little.
Interesting, that while academia is clearly dominantly liberal leaning the graduates should turn out to be more conservative. Although perhaps not that surprising, but still a bit.
That kind of overt jealousy and overall childishness that you just displayed is actually one of the stronger arguments against your position.
Someone poorly arguing a position is an argument against the position? A very solid logic. Moron.
Don't pretend to know what I believe because I say that, either. That would be the easy way, the low-hanging fruit, the coward's way out. What I just told you is true whether or not I think progressive taxation is a good idea. What I think about that matter and the reasoning with which I would support my view is unfortunately wasted on this sort of vitriol.
I make way more than that and yet I use just as much road, public libraries, etc as anyone else. It's fucked up that just because I got a break that I have to give away a third of my income. I paid $140,000 in taxes. That's money I just gave away and I will never see again. I still don't have health insurance either. Just because I'm successful now doesn't mean my problems have all gone away. At any moment I could be on my ass with no income. Yet the government taxes me like it's a sure thing. That's fucked up and something you will never understand until you get where I'm at.
Here's what I hear : "I'm rich whaaaa whaaa I could become poor again at any time so don't take more money in proportion to what I earn I need every last cent of what I earn cause what do you know maybe one day I won't earn anything whaaaa you shouldn't have to pay more than just what you use in taxes if you're a whiny ass egoistical cocksucker like me"
If you paid $140,000 in taxes that means that you earn enough to get yourself a nice 1960s Cadillac and fill it with first choice hookers. Quit whining, do that and shut the fuck up. Fagget.
Several people claim to know how to build a general purpose AI, if only they could afford to.
Several you say mmmh. The real question is, do they outnumber the people who claim to know how to build a perpetual movement machine if they had the means?
Yeah, just saying, there's emulators ported to PMPs and such every day. I don't doubt it may be interesting to many people, mostly to those who never heard of the A320, but that still doesn't make it worthy of being a front page news article.
No, my first sentence is a firm fact. The majority of men of science are liberals, fact. I don't see how you're debunking that. That's what your long-winded comment is supposed to be about, but I don't see where you do the refuting.
Oh and wtf is that shit with your numbered list about? Jeez, you libertarians need to be less butthurt about that claim I made. Just because you guys are losers doesn't mean you should get your wads in a bunch.
Blah blah TL;DR. I wasn't making a point from an objective point of view, my original claim was clearly about talking subjectively. So none of that stuff you're babbling about is relevant.
That's what painful about seeing people argue on Slashdot, they want to apply scientific method to subjective thing like 'why this survey makes me feel good about being a liberal'. Yeah, you guys do a great job at running checklists on anything you hear, but if you put a bit of thought before starting doing that maybe you'd realise it's not always needed. Suckers.
lol, Slashdotters and their littanies. Do you have any others besides that, "correlation != causation" and whatever Occam's razor says? I'd love to know some more, so that just like you I can recite some of that when I recognise that it might be vaguely appropriate, even if it doesn't really make sense.
I love how you guys' "critical thinking" seems to sum up to mindlessly running through a checklist of such phrases.
Well, I see it like this : I'm right until I'm proven wrong. And I don't think I'll live to be proven wrong, so I claim as loud as I want that this strong AI thing is impossible. You'll have a tough time making any claims about science that would still hold true in a thousand years, mainly regarding what's impossible, so you might as well limit yourself to what seems impossible given the current and foreseeable state of knowledge. Given this you can also safely claim that time travel and teleportation are impossible, even if in a few centuries it turns out to be possible. I'm only trying to make people realise that strong AI is just as (im)possible as these and to stop acting like it's something they may live to see.
Great suggestion, that the gates of science would be more broadly opened letting more kinds of people in. That sounds specially true considered the hordes of people from all horizons getting themselves into biological research, and the large proportion of biologists that make up the survey's scientists group.
That supposes that the entire universe is algorithmically reproducible, which is a view that holds some merit, however I still doubt we will manage to come up with anything resembling that fabled 'strong AI'. At least I can live in the comfort of doubtlessly living to not being proven wrong.
You want evidence that something infeasible (assuming you won't consider that we currently can't put enough neural nets in a supercomputer powerful enough to satisfy your demand) is impossible? I want some evidence that filling a 1 billion cubic meters bag with spiders won't turn into an evil blob-like insect overlord. Where is it?
However if by 'evidence' you mean 'reason', then I'll tell you that researchers spent decades putting ever increasing shitloads of neural networks on ever increasingly powerful supercomputers and that nothing particular ever came out of it, and that neural networks are just algorithms anyways, so throwing a whole bunch of power into it won't solve it, as we know what neural networks can or cannot do. If neural networks could possibly create some sort of strong AI, even if it was only a bug-like AI, we'd know it by now. Don't be fooled by the association made with actual neurons. If you're interested in AI because of HAL 9000 and the likes, then don't get into the field of AI, because there's nothing but ever-lasting disappointment for you.
Strong AI is to computer research as instant matter teleportation or (backwards) time travel are to astrophysics, nice in scifi, but never gonna happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Trust me, writing the check to the IRS was the hardest thing I've ever done.
LOL, how's that supposed to be something hard to brag about? The hardest I've done was working at SubWay with a bunch of Chinese immigrants. We can change places anytime you want. I still only hear whining. Make it easy on yourself and just accept the fact that you're not entitled to 100% of the money you earn, a part of it is *meant* for the taxes. If your taxes were to go down so would your salary (assuming you have a salary, for the sake of relevance since most people do even the rich ones let's assume you do too).
The least you could do is say "thanks" you fucking peasant.
Suck my dick, I live in Europe.
Only if you think life is about eating Hot Pockets while watching NASCAR. I have bigger plans than that.
So do people who make less money than you. Just look at me, I make $15,000 and I started my one-man company and now looking to put more people on the payroll. Everything you said in favour of you paying less taxes applies ten times more to poorer people like me. At the end of the day there's a certain amount of taxes that the state needs to collect, and what I can pay based on what I earn isn't much anyways. Would you have me go from eating frozen Tesco Value food down to eating nothing but noodles and rice just so you can feel better about paying the same amount in taxes as you do now?
By the way, you earn like a net third of a million a year and you're talking about eating hot pockets? If I earned a tenth of that I'd eat smoked salmon every couple of days.
Not really any need for any arguments, countries need money to run, rich people have more money plus can be safely relieved of more of it without it to become a real problem to them, therefore more is taken there. Simple as that. And no one cares about the whiners or what they have to whine about. To them society says "suck my collective dick, either pay your taxes, gfto the country or go to jail".
Besides, income taxation in the USA currently ranges from 10% to 35%, that's hardly a huge difference, whereas in the 1950s it reached as high as 22% to 92%. When put into perspective, it seems pretty faggotic to complain that the richest (who earn more than $372,951) must pay proportionally 3.5 times more than the poorest who earn $8,350 or less. I mean what do you want, take $2,000 more away from someone who makes $8,000 just so it feels 'fair' to someone who makes $400,000 when the gain to the state is so small? If you earn $400,000 you can do away with $140,000, if you earn $8,000 it's much harder to be taken $3,000, mostly when that's so little.
What do you gotta say to that?
Interesting, that while academia is clearly dominantly liberal leaning the graduates should turn out to be more conservative. Although perhaps not that surprising, but still a bit.
That kind of overt jealousy and overall childishness that you just displayed is actually one of the stronger arguments against your position.
Someone poorly arguing a position is an argument against the position? A very solid logic. Moron.
Don't pretend to know what I believe because I say that, either. That would be the easy way, the low-hanging fruit, the coward's way out. What I just told you is true whether or not I think progressive taxation is a good idea. What I think about that matter and the reasoning with which I would support my view is unfortunately wasted on this sort of vitriol.
No one cares what you think, only what you say.
I make way more than that and yet I use just as much road, public libraries, etc as anyone else. It's fucked up that just because I got a break that I have to give away a third of my income. I paid $140,000 in taxes. That's money I just gave away and I will never see again. I still don't have health insurance either. Just because I'm successful now doesn't mean my problems have all gone away. At any moment I could be on my ass with no income. Yet the government taxes me like it's a sure thing. That's fucked up and something you will never understand until you get where I'm at.
Here's what I hear : "I'm rich whaaaa whaaa I could become poor again at any time so don't take more money in proportion to what I earn I need every last cent of what I earn cause what do you know maybe one day I won't earn anything whaaaa you shouldn't have to pay more than just what you use in taxes if you're a whiny ass egoistical cocksucker like me"
If you paid $140,000 in taxes that means that you earn enough to get yourself a nice 1960s Cadillac and fill it with first choice hookers. Quit whining, do that and shut the fuck up. Fagget.
That'd be cool, but if it doesn't happen you could still go up and visit an old satellite launched in 1958.
By the way, ain't there been "ghost balloons" already?
Several people claim to know how to build a general purpose AI, if only they could afford to.
Several you say mmmh. The real question is, do they outnumber the people who claim to know how to build a perpetual movement machine if they had the means?
http://pdroms.de/
See, just today, an Odyssey2 emu was ported to the Dingoo.
Yeah, just saying, there's emulators ported to PMPs and such every day. I don't doubt it may be interesting to many people, mostly to those who never heard of the A320, but that still doesn't make it worthy of being a front page news article.
slownewsday
No, actually Republicans as a whole tend to have more educational background than democrats
lololol, citation please?
Up to date there have been very few attempts to create a genuinely intelligent entity.
Yeah, why would that be? Perhaps because no one has any fucking clue how to go about doing this?
Yeah, except it had nothing to do with anything I claim.
Wow, biased much?
No, my first sentence is a firm fact. The majority of men of science are liberals, fact. I don't see how you're debunking that. That's what your long-winded comment is supposed to be about, but I don't see where you do the refuting.
Oh and wtf is that shit with your numbered list about? Jeez, you libertarians need to be less butthurt about that claim I made. Just because you guys are losers doesn't mean you should get your wads in a bunch.
Hehe good points :D
Blah blah TL;DR. I wasn't making a point from an objective point of view, my original claim was clearly about talking subjectively. So none of that stuff you're babbling about is relevant.
That's what painful about seeing people argue on Slashdot, they want to apply scientific method to subjective thing like 'why this survey makes me feel good about being a liberal'. Yeah, you guys do a great job at running checklists on anything you hear, but if you put a bit of thought before starting doing that maybe you'd realise it's not always needed. Suckers.
Argument from authority is a logical fallacy
lol, Slashdotters and their littanies. Do you have any others besides that, "correlation != causation" and whatever Occam's razor says? I'd love to know some more, so that just like you I can recite some of that when I recognise that it might be vaguely appropriate, even if it doesn't really make sense.
I love how you guys' "critical thinking" seems to sum up to mindlessly running through a checklist of such phrases.
You tell me. You're not replying to the right guy.
Well, I see it like this : I'm right until I'm proven wrong. And I don't think I'll live to be proven wrong, so I claim as loud as I want that this strong AI thing is impossible. You'll have a tough time making any claims about science that would still hold true in a thousand years, mainly regarding what's impossible, so you might as well limit yourself to what seems impossible given the current and foreseeable state of knowledge. Given this you can also safely claim that time travel and teleportation are impossible, even if in a few centuries it turns out to be possible. I'm only trying to make people realise that strong AI is just as (im)possible as these and to stop acting like it's something they may live to see.
Great suggestion, that the gates of science would be more broadly opened letting more kinds of people in. That sounds specially true considered the hordes of people from all horizons getting themselves into biological research, and the large proportion of biologists that make up the survey's scientists group.
That supposes that the entire universe is algorithmically reproducible, which is a view that holds some merit, however I still doubt we will manage to come up with anything resembling that fabled 'strong AI'. At least I can live in the comfort of doubtlessly living to not being proven wrong.
Oh that's something I didn't consider, maybe there's more Europeans among older scientists ;-).
I stand corrected and withdraw my GP comment!
You want evidence that something infeasible (assuming you won't consider that we currently can't put enough neural nets in a supercomputer powerful enough to satisfy your demand) is impossible? I want some evidence that filling a 1 billion cubic meters bag with spiders won't turn into an evil blob-like insect overlord. Where is it?
However if by 'evidence' you mean 'reason', then I'll tell you that researchers spent decades putting ever increasing shitloads of neural networks on ever increasingly powerful supercomputers and that nothing particular ever came out of it, and that neural networks are just algorithms anyways, so throwing a whole bunch of power into it won't solve it, as we know what neural networks can or cannot do. If neural networks could possibly create some sort of strong AI, even if it was only a bug-like AI, we'd know it by now. Don't be fooled by the association made with actual neurons. If you're interested in AI because of HAL 9000 and the likes, then don't get into the field of AI, because there's nothing but ever-lasting disappointment for you.
Strong AI is to computer research as instant matter teleportation or (backwards) time travel are to astrophysics, nice in scifi, but never gonna happen.
A machine is a device. A device is a human invention. Men didn't invent brains.
Besides by theoretically impossible I was talking about doing it algorithmically.