There are huge outrages and far nastier dictators planetwide. Do we make any attempt to "bring democracy" to countries like say.... Darfur? No. Why do you think that is? Just coincidence that we decided to intervene in the one region on earth with the most accessible oil?
And if you haven't considered the economic and political implications of scarcer, more expensive oil, I suggest you review "PowerDown," visit "theoildrum.com" and educate yourself on the geopolitics of energy supply in general (Hint: It's not about quantity of oil. It's about energy return at an affordable price and without collateral damage).
You missed the "Scalable" part. Yes, we're intelligent, however, not enough. The problems we're facing are simply too large, interconnected and difficult for humans to solve in a time frame that *matters."
No, AI won't be a magical djinn although it will look that way at points, just as computers looked when they first arrived. Moreover, some problems simply may not have solutions that can be implemented at a cost that would matter to us.
But if problems like energy depletion or illness *can* be solved, quickly, by artificial means, would you not elect to do so?
You misunderstand. I want to create AI as means to save billions of lives. At the moment, we're fumbling around trying to find cures for things and solutions to problems like global warming, energy supply and ecological decay that are frankly too complex for us. The *only* thing AI, or any machine is good for is to provide a service that helps humans. Finding a vaccine is laudable. Finding ALL the vaccines that you'll ever need is better.
It's closer than you think. IBM already has a neural net that very closely mimics natural neural tissue (http://domino.watson.ibm.com/comm/research_projects.nsf/pages/bmc_modeling.index.html). The problem is that of scale in observational power (i.e. getting molecule level resolution fMRI to reverse engineer activity) and plain old computer capacity. There's nothing magic about the brain or anything else. It's not an "if," it's a "when."
He would be pouring every dime he could into the development of human-like, scalable, artificial intelligence - solving all the problems that are solvable instead of this piecemeal nonsense. Moreover, Gates is in a better position than anyone on the planet to get this done.
How is this better than taking direct (solar panels and mirror arrays) and indirect advantage of that local fusion reactor, the sun? While fusion is high tech and cool and all that, we can still make a *lot* of power by damming thousands of smaller rivers and putting in mid size hydroelectric plants. No new technology is needed, and ecological concerns can be addressed by diverting only part of the water to a manmade channel and not touching the original riverbed.
So yes, fusion is neat, but I think it's kind of dumb as cost effective engineering solutions go.
So, apparently the free market works, except near Houston, Texas, or the Cape in Florida. Interesting. Does this imply that these two areas are in fact, socialist states, or that they want to be? Their congressman's reaction certainly implies this.
Stay tuned to this blog for further developments....
I like Juggernaut but have a secret preference for Sivanaut (I realize I'm being narrow here), but I do like the concept. The dance of creation and destruction all in one. Sounds like the greater universe of space to me.
Let's hope they can make something sustainable and profitable (Hint: Manned space-based low earth orbit solar power stations are where the money is going to be guys).
>" Fucking scientologists..." You're mistaking stupidity with venality. I can assure you stupidity wins.
It's debatable how vile the "war machine" (i.e. the USA Military is). I've met, and hired, many ex-military in my day. It's the politicians that direct them who, I think, must bear the blame. If there's any evil to be found, it's usually there.
And they, of course, is us. We elect them. Vile lazy sheep that most of us are.
I'd love to downsize our military commitments to countries that can take care of themselves, but we'd be insane to give up our nuclear arsenal. As long as we have that, we are essentially unbeatable by large military campaigns run by coalitions of other countries. It's too effective a deterrent to that particular threat configuration. Yes, Russia could give us a good pounding - perhaps (We don't really know how many nukes in good working order they still possess), but they have every reason not to. Bad for business, you know.
And if you think the US military only does war crimes, I advise you to watch the news regarding a little island called "Haiti."
That is true, but if you're working for anyone else, and especially near the border (e.g. Las Cruces), it's a tough slog. I more than doubled my salary when I moved to Texas and it's gone up since I got her 13 years ago. In New Mexico's commercial software sector, I was in debt. In Texas's commercial software sector, I've bought houses (personal and investment) and have no debt that isn't being paid by a tenant. While there are many good things about New Mexico, (people, food and scenery), I couldn't even get out of the gate economically.
Sadly, in study after study, the Virgin Mary has been found to be remarkably inefficient, particularly when compared to medieval saints and or numerous Hindu gods.
Slashdot Mirror
You're kidding, right?
There are huge outrages and far nastier dictators planetwide. Do we make any attempt to "bring democracy" to countries like say.... Darfur? No. Why do you think that is? Just coincidence that we decided to intervene in the one region on earth with the most accessible oil?
And if you haven't considered the economic and political implications of scarcer, more expensive oil, I suggest you review "PowerDown," visit "theoildrum.com" and educate yourself on the geopolitics of energy supply in general (Hint: It's not about quantity of oil. It's about energy return at an affordable price and without collateral damage).
You missed the "Scalable" part. Yes, we're intelligent, however, not enough. The problems we're facing are simply too large, interconnected and difficult for humans to solve in a time frame that *matters."
No, AI won't be a magical djinn although it will look that way at points, just as computers looked when they first arrived. Moreover, some problems simply may not have solutions that can be implemented at a cost that would matter to us.
But if problems like energy depletion or illness *can* be solved, quickly, by artificial means, would you not elect to do so?
You misunderstand. I want to create AI as means to save billions of lives. At the moment, we're fumbling around trying to find cures for things and solutions to problems like global warming, energy supply and ecological decay that are frankly too complex for us. The *only* thing AI, or any machine is good for is to provide a service that helps humans. Finding a vaccine is laudable. Finding ALL the vaccines that you'll ever need is better.
It's closer than you think. IBM already has a neural net that very closely mimics natural neural tissue (http://domino.watson.ibm.com/comm/research_projects.nsf/pages/bmc_modeling.index.html). The problem is that of scale in observational power (i.e. getting molecule level resolution fMRI to reverse engineer activity) and plain old computer capacity. There's nothing magic about the brain or anything else. It's not an "if," it's a "when."
He would be pouring every dime he could into the development of human-like, scalable, artificial intelligence - solving all the problems that are solvable instead of this piecemeal nonsense. Moreover, Gates is in a better position than anyone on the planet to get this done.
They'll wire out over it, of course. Anything to keep "The Base" stirred up in their trailers.
Serious schmerious. What's funnier than real life vampirism or embedded cloned fetuses? Some people have *no* sense of humor....
This surprises you?
And do you respect yourself in the morning, um, er evening? Whenever....
How is this better than taking direct (solar panels and mirror arrays) and indirect advantage of that local fusion reactor, the sun? While fusion is high tech and cool and all that, we can still make a *lot* of power by damming thousands of smaller rivers and putting in mid size hydroelectric plants. No new technology is needed, and ecological concerns can be addressed by diverting only part of the water to a manmade channel and not touching the original riverbed.
So yes, fusion is neat, but I think it's kind of dumb as cost effective engineering solutions go.
So, apparently the free market works, except near Houston, Texas, or the Cape in Florida. Interesting. Does this imply that these two areas are in fact, socialist states, or that they want to be? Their congressman's reaction certainly implies this.
Stay tuned to this blog for further developments....
Oh wait, somebody already took that one.
It all depends on where they get the skin, and from whom.
I like Juggernaut but have a secret preference for Sivanaut (I realize I'm being narrow here), but I do like the concept. The dance of creation and destruction all in one. Sounds like the greater universe of space to me.
Let's hope they can make something sustainable and profitable (Hint: Manned space-based low earth orbit solar power stations are where the money is going to be guys).
Which is exactly what will happen as NASA becomes a side issue.
>" Fucking scientologists..."
You're mistaking stupidity with venality. I can assure you stupidity wins.
It's debatable how vile the "war machine" (i.e. the USA Military is). I've met, and hired, many ex-military in my day. It's the politicians that direct them who, I think, must bear the blame. If there's any evil to be found, it's usually there.
And they, of course, is us. We elect them. Vile lazy sheep that most of us are.
>Which one are we going to run out of?
OK, here's a list:
1) Uranium
2) Oil
3) Coal
4) Natural gas (conventional and methane clathrates)
We're pretty good on Thorium and Deuterium though, and I imagine we'll start aggressively recycling rare metals by and by.
I'd love to downsize our military commitments to countries that can take care of themselves, but we'd be insane to give up our nuclear arsenal. As long as we have that, we are essentially unbeatable by large military campaigns run by coalitions of other countries. It's too effective a deterrent to that particular threat configuration. Yes, Russia could give us a good pounding - perhaps (We don't really know how many nukes in good working order they still possess), but they have every reason not to. Bad for business, you know.
And if you think the US military only does war crimes, I advise you to watch the news regarding a little island called "Haiti."
No. No! It's "Skynet, meet Mr. 1984's Brave New World."
"Sir, the new beetle you were working on? It crashed. Shall I reboot it?"
That is true, but if you're working for anyone else, and especially near the border (e.g. Las Cruces), it's a tough slog. I more than doubled my salary when I moved to Texas and it's gone up since I got her 13 years ago. In New Mexico's commercial software sector, I was in debt. In Texas's commercial software sector, I've bought houses (personal and investment) and have no debt that isn't being paid by a tenant. While there are many good things about New Mexico, (people, food and scenery), I couldn't even get out of the gate economically.
And if you *really* want to be poor, move to New Mexico where the salaries are a wee bit above third world levels but not much.
I can rent out my bathroom ceiling to an engineering research firm?
Sadly, in study after study, the Virgin Mary has been found to be remarkably inefficient, particularly when compared to medieval saints and or numerous Hindu gods.