Meet Watson, it beat the best humans in the open ended problem domain of "game show trivia" using natural language processing. When it won the Jeopardy championship it had 20 tons of air-conditioning and a room full of servers. Today it runs on a "pizza box" server and you can try it out yourself. After Jeopardy it went back to working with various medical institutes where it was trained and fed on a steady diet of medical journals, it's now well past the point where it became knowledgeable enough to pass the test for a US GP's license.

True Watson is blind, but I suspect the problems with visual input is more about the human teacher's failure to provide the right context and experience than it is about the artificial students ability to learn.

This isn't about etymology. It's irrelevant how God and Allah were derived. What's relevant is how they're used today.

You will find as much consistency in the Islamic world as in the Christian or Jewish worlds. If you look at the Monotheistic Abrahamic faiths, it is the Christian sects that, by and large, are the most deviated from the Old Testament norms; in particular as far as the Trinity goes. The Jewish and Muslim view of God is far closer to a pure monotheism.

Louis in German is Louis, obviously.

It's Ludwig, not Louis. Both names have their origins in Old Franconian; in which the name was Chlodowig. They are equivalent, but with various pronunciation changes over the last 1500 or so years. You see, a funny thing happens to words, they evolve in pronunciation and in meaning.

But the word "allah" is merely the Arabic word for "god", and etymologically is related to similar words in other Semitic languages, including the Hebrew "el". If you're an Arabic Christian, you will use the word "allah" for the same reason. For goodness sakes, mate, the Aramaic word for God is "elah".

The only thing dead here is the mass between your ears.

The saddest thing about morons is that that they think their moronic nature is a matter of pride, and not shame.

Take your meds, the paranoia will subside.

Maybe, but statistical thinking doesn't come naturally. People cheat at gambling by loading dice so that they come up snake eyes (say) 1 in 20 throws. They get away with it because even if you know the dice are loaded there is no way to link any particular snake eye event to the hidden weights. The victims simply subscribe it to luck, but the longer you play the more suspicious they will become of your "lucky streak". Same deal with storms, floods, and droughts.

Eternal damnation in the fires of hell was not mentioned in the old testament, it was introduced by gentle Jesus in the new testament.

You obviously haven't heard of Tony Abbot's humanitarian fighter jets.

Etymology isn't your strong suit, nor logic, nor much else.

BTW, what is Louis in German?

It's a long way to the shop. If you want a sausage roll.

Pieroxy(2014) or Fourier(1824)? - Tough choice.

If we are being 'serious', nobody has claimed there is such a thing, however the climate our civilization has experienced in the last 10k yrs has been in a very stable "dynamic equilibrium". That is set to change because humans are kicking the crap out of the climate system, it will fuck up our agriculture, flood our coastal cities, and cause mass migration. How much worse it gets is depends on how we behave, if continue on our current course then the laws of physics say the ocean will become acidic in the 2100's - the last time such an event happened naturally, it coincided with the worst ever extinction event known to man.

We have already got a taste of how climatic changes can cause social disruption in Syria. The "arab spring" was preceded by the worst drought in the 10ky history of the fertile crescent (the birthplace of agriculture). The 'unprecedented' drought caused people to abandon their farms and set off food riots in major cities such as Cairo and Aleppo. In Syria agriculture totally collapsed, a full 10% of the population (2M people) simply walked off their "dust bowl" farms just prior to the civil war, coincidence?

I drove a cab in Australia for 3yrs, it's not the worst job I've had but it's certainly the worst paid job, think fruit picking money. Most cabbies don't own the cab or the plates (medallion). The cab owners are the ones who are understandably getting upset since if uber is legal the plates they paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for suddenly become worthless.

Uber drivers are desperate for work and silly enough to run their own car into the ground for little more than petrol money, when it's dead they can't afford a new one and walk away in a worse situation than they started. Courier companies do the same thing here in Melbourne, they call you a "sub-contractor" get you to stick a "courier" sign on your own car then you drive it at your own expense until it falls apart. And if you're unlucky enough to fuck up without the right insurance, you will be paying for it the rest of your life.

From my experience with real cabs, sticking with a regulated taxi industry is the best thing any of us can do to stop uber exploiting desperate people in a race to the bottom.

Says AC so inept that he cannot begin a sentence with a capitalized word, actually spell "dark matter" or end his sentence with a period.

Not to mention it's a bloody AC who has indicated no level of expertise in physics or cosmology.

Actually what I find most awful about CSI shows is the notion that police investigations are akin to unbeatable magical formulas. If investigators zero in on a suspect, almost inevitably that suspect is guilty, and found to be so by incredible technologies used by beautiful people in sci-fi like laboratories. Even in slightly more realistic portrayals of criminal investigations, like the original Law And Order, seldom is the accused actually innocent, but rather he or she manages to elude justice through some combination of sloppy police work and prosecutorial errors.

But even worse than all those cop and CSI dramas to my mind are the police investigation news magazines like 48 hours, where the police zero in on a suspect, arrest him, and the prosecutors successfully see the accused right through conviction. They usually pay lip service to the notion of the presumption of innocence by allowing the inevitably evil convict to assert "I'm innocent!", though with a weary and bemused postscript by the narrator indicating that justice was done, the cops always get their man, and the DA is godlike in his or her ability to convince a jury of guilt.

I think you're confusing the actors and directors with the studios. Those groups have very often been very liberal, but the studio heads care only about money, and they will cozy up with anyone they think has it, and attack anyone who dares threaten it. If real fascists took over the United States tomorrow, Hollywood would quite happily begin producing films supporting that ideology. Essentially, the heads of the big studios are soulless accountants and lawyers.