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

Perhaps you should actually cite the study you're talking about so we can discuss it without the filter of your recollection. All the ones I've seen show quite clear discrimination in the US.

Whatever quota you like. Quotas are, by definition, discrimination. This story is about an effectively 100/0 quota. 100% credit for girls, 0% for boys.

ok, you are completely out of your mind.

You're confusing a metric of equality with the existence of sexism and sexual discrimination. Dictating that you must hire 50% men and 50% women is sexual discrimination by definition, but it will do an excellent job of evening out the metrics. However, it seems quite probable that you've increased sexist thinking: some of the men who didn't get the job because they're men will have lowered opinions of women. The women who did get the job because they're women will know that sexual discrimination played a role in their hiring, regardless of whether they were actually the best candidate or not. And the people doing the hiring, regardless of their sex, will know that they were forced to make discriminatory hiring decisions. The difference isn't academic, either. Those sexist beliefs are likely to manifest themselves wherever you're not specifically controlling them. Workplace interaction. At home. On the street. In people's self esteem.

Also, discrimination isn't as simple as some people would have you believe. If the study you're referring to is the one I think it is, they did find discrimination, but they found that women in a hiring position made decisions that were more discriminatory against women than did men. It's not as simple as an old boys club who believes men are superior (although there is undoubtedly some of that remaining). If it's the other study I'm thinking of, they found the same thing.

Prejudice breeds prejudice. The real solution to discrimination is to treat everyone equally.

Real feminists disagree with sexual discrimination, whichever way around. Real feminism is about equality and eliminating sexism.

The feminists I would call "hardcore" seem to be very much in favour of sexual discrimination, so long as it works in their favour. They make up a variety of reasons why it's okay, in that case. When they get really desperate they bring out phrases like "patriarchal society" and "justice for past oppression."

Your example is an apt one. Sexism breeds sexism, as all prejudice breeds prejudice, regardless of whether you're doing it because you're an ass who was born fifty years too late or a well-meaning organization trying to even out some statistic.