Science doesn't work like economics. More to the point, science actually works, quite unlike economics beyond the utterly simplistic. So as it turns out, past performance is an indicator of future performance in the case of science.

Then Einstein explained the photoelectric effect, and the rest, they say, is history.

Socks were invented in the stone age, and the rest is hosiery.

The mods deem this insightful?

On slashdot, the vast majority of mods are of the form "agree / disagree." "Insightful" usually means "that's exactly what I think, too." There's very little correlation between up moderation and quality, primarily because moderation is unaccountable, but also because the moderators are selected without regard for skill or ability in the area of, you guessed it, moderation.

Nobody quite knows why, though, as the end result is invariably something that's almost, but not quite, like viagra.

FTFY

How many times has this been said before, and proven wrong?

All of them. :)

Strong AI is possible, guaranteed. You're one example of it. The word "artificial" is utterly misleading. All it really says is "we know it exists in animals, and we choose to call any other example artificial, even if we're emulating the biological example."

There's nothing magical about the brain or brainops, superstition notwithstanding. It's just physics like everything else. Technology will get there, it's as inevitable as any other technology already invented, only more so, due to the immense potential for advancement on every front.

Presuming, of course, that we don't destroy ourselves before we get there. Sigh.

The existence of the LHC, as well as the type of discoveries made due to the LHC, in no way preclude discoveries elsewhere.

And as they would be discoveries, there's no saying if some are, or aren't, going to occur.

Inasmuch as cosmological theory is in complete disarray at this time -- "dark this" and "dark that", no certain knowledge of how the universe started -- added to which the fact that we can't yet see other worlds (but the tech to do that is approachable, given the appropriate industrial base), I think it's more than a bit premature to declare things like the LHC the last bastion of physics discoveries.

Customer: “Now, I'm going to ask you that question once more. And if you say no, I'm going to shoot you through the head. Now, do you have any cheese at all?”

Shop owner: “No.” (shoots cheese shop owner)

Just off the top of my head, we can reasonably expect (meaning, we're still short of) fundamental discoveries and/or basic technological developments in) artificial intelligence, mind download/upload to any degree, human augmentation (bio, mechanical, information processing, communications), animal augmentation, medicine of all kinds (in the areas of "how we work" and "how to keep us working" almost *everything* remains to be discovered), life extension, genetics, space drives, fusion technology, 3D printing / assemblers, nanotechnology, energy storage (ultracaps etc.), long baseline observing tech, canned learning, synthetic meats, holography, gravity...

And that's just a few of the areas we know about. No one knows what new things may be discovered by further exploration of space and the solar system, the sea floor, the earth beneath us, the various and sundry signals and noises that we can detect from elsewhere, and the ideas that spring solely from thinking about what we already know or suspect...

From my POV, both fundamental and technological development has usually seemed to manifest in a pyramidal fashion; one develops at least part of one level before you get to work on the next. With that in mind, I'd venture that we won't slow down either discovery or invention of things new until we cease discovery and invention among things known. And I don't think that's anywhere in sight.

But... then there are all those ideas in the SF lexicon, at least some of which are no doubt going to show up, either in the manner imagined or via some other mechanism. Frederick Pohl's "Joymaker" basically predicted the modern smartphone (except his device did some extra things we can't duplicate yet... like keep your up-to-date mind on file elsewhere as a backup); Arthur Clark nailed the whole geostationary communications satellite thing, William Gibson gave us a vision of networks that we still haven't even come close to (and I sure wish we would); Robert Heinlein came up with the waldo. There are plenty of ideas that seem like they *ought* to be possible, too, but don't appear to be so as imagined -- but that doesn't mean there isn't another way to get to those goals. Transporters, effectively FTL transport, levitation, etc.

It was a joke then....

In an imaginary humorous conversation, someone asked "Isn't there a clerk who can examine patents?" The reply was "Quite unnecessary, Sir. Everything that can be invented has been invented.*"

...and it's still a joke.

* incorrectly attributed to Charles H. Duell, commissioner of US patent office in 1899

ok, you are completely out of your mind.

A cop is no more able to injure you and get away with it than anyone els

Now you're just completely hallucinating.

Here's the face of that: http://www.cato.org/raidmap.

Cops get away with injuring people all the time, both on the street and in custody, not to mention via proxies in prison.

How will you ever get rid of the bad actors if you make it horrible job for anybody who might replace them?

I didn't make it a horrible job. They did.

Not all human beings are able to arrest me.

Not all human beings are able to have their word taken over mine in court by default.

Not all human beings are able to injure me and get away with it.

Not all human beings are able to invade my home and get away with it.

Not all human beings are able to kill me and get away with it.

Not all human beings are able to restrain me and get away with it.

Not all human beings are able to force me to stop my car and get away with it.

Not all human beings are allowed to go fogging down the road, dangerously far over the speed limit just because some pretty lights are on and/or they're making a loud noise. ...and so on.

So look here: I'll grant you that cops aren't 100% faultless nor is it reasonable to expect them to be, but, I think it's important to point out that when a cop makes an actual mistake, we need to look really hard at it even if we conclude all the response that's required is pointing it out, and more data is better in that case.

Furthermore, when "not 100% faultless" really means "cop is a scumbag criminal", or "cop is aiding and abetting a fellow cop who is a scumbag criminal by conspiring to hide their misdeeds and is therefore also a scumbag criminal" then yes, we do need to see who and how they are hurting people as they violate the public trust so we at least have some chance to clean house. This is oversight of power in public service, and it is, I believe, *entirely* reasonable when any serious degree of force and/or authority is delegated.

Use inter-process communication

[waves hand] Which operating systems have integrated IPC mechanisms? I mean, besides AmigaDOS?

My thinking is that if the monitoring equipment is not functioning, all arrest, charges and tickets made/performed during the nonfunctioning period are nullified. It won't help stop these officers from taking drug money, bribes, and generally being LA cops, but it at least incorporates a minimal level of protection for the citizens. And the good news is, it won't impact good cops much at all, except to blow an arrest from time to time, assuming someone is dumb enough to approach a cop car and try to vandalize it. Which, frankly, I doubt happens very much. Particularly in LA.