Do you think a salmon is 1,000,000 times smarter than an ant? Because that's the consequence of applying a linear timeline to exponential growth.
How smart is an ant anyway? Or a salmon? Or a dog? How do you quantify it? Are they 3 smart? Maybe 11?
But to indulge your arbitrary metrics for "smartness," we can simulate entire colonies of ants already: http://www.not-equal.eu/myrmed...
So maybe the future is closer than you think. Six or seven closer.
So, you're dismissive of anything that reflects badly upon Atheism and atheist in general, by ignoring actual concerns. If you're going to be grammatically pedantic, fine, I get it, and will rephrase my statements so that you can understand my intentions better.
That's pretty idiotic.
Atheists who say those things, or me for reporting it as it happened?
But more likely a scenario is that Atheists do not want to apply their logic against religion to atheism, as it doesn't reflect "true atheism".
You say "atheists" as if referring to all atheists.
THESE (mentioned previously) Atheists do not want to apply their logic against religion to atheism, as it doesn't reflect "true atheism". (citing example followed, which was ignored)
I have no idea what these people you're talking about actually think, but I would imagine, at least, that they take into account intent and how deeply religious beliefs played into those horrors. That probably would make a different to them.
I see, tossing "all" atheists into the same basket is not okay, but doing the same with "all" religions is! Do you dismiss the idea of State Sponsored Atheism caused the state to persecute religions in the name of atheism? Or is it simply the case that that wasn't "true atheism"?
I can assure you that my faith doesn't require me killing anyone. There is not a commandment to kill, and specifically has a prohibition against murder. Of course there is no such commandment to not kill in Atheism for atheism is completely amoral and without any absolutes. Meaning there is nothing prohibited or commanded in the name of no-diety, therefore any time atheists say anything about atheism, it is subject to change based upon the whims of those that adhere to it.
Let my preface this by saying that I believe all parallel construction should be illegal, and I hope/believe that it will eventually be ruled accordingly. Partial truths are still deceit, and dishonesty in the legal system opens it up to (further) abuse. It's either illegal to lie under oath, or it is not, and the government should hold itself to the same standard that we expect of citizens.
That said, parallel construction is precisely about concealing the impetus. The classic example is a traffic stop that appears to be random, but is actually targeting a vehicle. The targeted vehicle could well have been stopped solely for whatever reason police used, and so that's the "parallel construction," even though police knew exactly which vehicle they wanted to stop.
"You'd be told only, âBe at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle.' And so we'd alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle, and then have a drug dog search it," the agent said. http://www.reuters.com/article...
Bringing a canine unit to the storage facility would allow the officer to tell the partial truth that he got a hit on a storage unit during a walk-through, even if the impetus for bringing the dog and doing a walk-through was because of a CI (and even if the hit was prompted). The deceit isn't in saying how the contraband was actually discovered/acquired, but in what the impetus was for using that (perfectly legal) method in the first place. That part is the "parallel construction."
Now you might have been saying that GP's speculation that it was parallel construction is wrong, but we're all just speculating on what the officer might have been doing anyway. Maybe it was just a recreation for the camera and they forgot to edit that part out.
I know that the evidence supporting the existence of souls is about as compelling as the evidence for mermaids. Maybe slightly lower actually, since people have actually claimed to see mermaids.
Also, don't forget to blink. You wouldn't want your eyes to dry up!
And since there seem to be lots of "off" switches, this is really just adding to the list. (Unless stimulating it can actually bring someone out of a coma?)
But also be pretty awesome to be "instantly" transported to the future! Woohoo!
At some point costs (labor requirements) will be so low that an entire population doesn't need to work full-time, or even anything approaching full time, in order to meet them. This is most clearly visible when looking at the amount of money we spend on food -- costs have decreased so dramatically that food costs as a percent of income are lower than income taxes in most cases. So what happens when the costs of other goods and services decrease accordingly? What happens when we don't have to pay people to create those goods and services, because they're created by machines? When grain is harvested by self-driving combines, and transported to market on self-driving trucks, and vended by automated machines? Because all of the other parts of the supply chain have already been automated -- those are the few that remain. The costs of goods and services will approach zero, even if they never quite get there.
We currently accommodate this through unemployment -- reducing the size of the workforce and making people compete for available positions instead of lowering the time per individual. We leave it up to individuals to either re-task or retire. And reductions in the workforce are sustainable -- up to about 1 worker per family. After that it starts to fall apart.
Automation is happening all around us, but we keep our collective heads in the sand because *our* jobs haven't yet been obsoleted, and because we fail to imagine a day when that could happen. I'm not saying it will be a utopia by any means. On the contrary, I don't think humans are generally wired to be happy and content, and we will always find things to be unhappy about. What I am saying is that we need to plan in order to avoid the dystopia that will necessarily ensue from massive unemployment and the lack of a societal model to accommodate it.
Of course, we can't even execute an effective, collective plans for more concrete "when not if" scenarios like natural events, so I'm not holding my breath for realistic plans to address near-zero cost existence.
I dunno, several Athiests I have had conversations with, have insisted that that they are "true atheists" and don't care about what others believe, and insist that the vocal anti-theists are not "true atheists".
I haven't declared anything off limits. My limits are whatever we agree upon. If having a conversation with me, someone points out all the "evils" committed by Christians, based upon their view, then by all means, any act committed by an Atheist is equally subject to how "atheism" should be viewed. But more likely a scenario is that Atheists do not want to apply their logic against religion to atheism, as it doesn't reflect "true atheism". So the horrors of Crusades are fair game, but the atrocities of the USSR and China, and Vietnam and
My only rule is that logic must be applied equally, or it isn't logical. Something that many arguing against theism are simply not willing to make. I wonder why.
The Constitution is not a living document. It's not open to interpretation. The vast majority of the bullshit the Federal government is throwing upon is isn't the slightest bit legal.
The assertions that underlie a variety of government behaviors are often quite weak; but what would it even mean for a document to be 'not open to interpretation'? Short of a superhuman AI that is the authoritative interpreter of itself, or a not-necessarily-finite document that manages to address all questions within its remit, without ambiguity or contradiction, neither over nor underdetermined, there is no separation between 'reading' and 'interpretation'.
This doesn't mean that all interpretations are valid, or that some aren't trivially bullshit; but there is no such thing as a 'non-interpreted' conclusion from the constitution. Your 'originalists' (allegedly, their adherence to this is sometimes...questionable) attempt to interpret the document as much like one of the people who wrote it would as they are able to, while other judicial schools do not endorse this as an objective; but 'interpret the constitution while pretending as hard as possible to be Thomas Jefferson' is 'interpretation' just as much as any other technique.
Indeed. We need to start talking about what our world should look like when people don't need to work.
Why not just let the users do the job? Cheaper, faster and easier...
Generally, when somebody is paying for what it sounds like they could get for free, or even get paid for, there is good reason to suspect that the job description is either underplaying the exact level of difficulty and/or boredom involved, or that somebody has already learned the hard way that what they can get for free isn't exactly what they want.
In this case, I'd be inclined to suspect that the job is closer to being a 'machine vision' substitute for stuff that machines can't yet see or which it wouldn't be cost-effective to have an expensive analyst cobble together a ruleset and then cheap labor check for mistakes when you could just have cheap labor classify it (eg. 'movies set in space' is probably something that you could achieve reasonable accuracy on, if you do some futzing with detecting starfields and common flavors of "rocket thruster jet of flame"; but you'd have your false positives and false negatives from things in space that happen mostly inside spacecraft, and things not in space that happen to involve looking at the sky more than usual, and so on).
It's probably a hell of a grind, actually, given that (unlike, say, being a film critic or some film-studies culture critic type) Netflix is going to want everything ground through and tagged on a variety of parameters, not just the stuff you happen to be a geek about, or the stuff that's worth watching, or what have you. It wouldn't much surprise me if, for efficiency's sake, they have you monitoring more than one stream at a time, or working in faster-than-real time, or a combination. You can probably extract the data they want rather faster than you can enjoy the program, even if it is one you like.
Actually, GP was correct, and you seem to be misinformed. The notion of parallel construction originated in protecting CIs, and has been used for that purpose for decades. Extending it to cover illegal NSA wiretaps was a more recent development.
People who go to conferences are the ones who shouldn't.
