Here's the holy grail of arguments against IQ, the single most convincing evidence is that you can TRAIN to get a higher IQ score, without actually becoming what anyone would call smarter. The first time I took an IQ test, I got little above average (110ish); I didn't know what kind of thing they were looking for, specially on those "what comes next?" (which are really dumb questions, btw). I studied for it and on my last one I got 148. I didn't feel any smarter from the first to the last, just better at answering those specific tests... On the other hand, that was a few years ago, but I'm sure if I took one today I would get a lot less than 148, but I AM smarter than what I was those many years ago. I'm obviously slower, sure, and probably my memory isn't as good, but I understand the world much better. Isn't that what smarter means? I know many people who are way smarter than me but who are SLOWER thinking (but deeper), and so don't do very well on all sorts of tests... I'm fast, so I usually do well.

...will it have Will Smith in it?

The nation? Who cares about a "nation"? Hey, I agree with your points, scientists and engineers should be admired more, but how about substituting "nation" for "world? There are humans with problems in other "countries" too.

Well, someone has to do it: http://www.xkcd.com/774/

Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it? I'm betting it didn't require even 1% of all number theory invented, let alone all math. And even then, there many, many problems which are harder to understand than even P != NP that have been solved (just look at anything in algebraic geometry involving schemes and you'll see what I'm talking about).

... the people who bought it because it worked with wine. I, for one, bought it back when there was no linux client, just because it had a 'platinum' (or gold maybe) rating from in the winehq app database. I wouldn't have bought it otherwise, but I was happy when I got a native client. The game is nice, though, and I would love to see it's source code released (like Aquaria,Gish,Lugaru and Penumbra, all of which have already released their source code). I'm very curious about how they do many of the things they do....

I don't understand, how do they define time so that one measure is 'better' than another? Just consistency or what? In other words, how do they know which one is more 'accurate'? (what does 'accurate' mean?)

Yes, you are right, of course, there is no way to determine what will the robot do. My comment was more that it is stupid to think that ALL robots, just because they are robots, will like other robots more, without any reason. Sure, one robot might kill someone, by accident or by an error in their non-deterministic programming, but a human is waay more likely to do it (since our behavior was selected by natural selection to be vengeful, aggressive, and other creepy stuff). And we will never have a humans vs cylons war, unless someone inserts an innate dislike for humans into the programming of the robot. That's what I considered stupid. Expecting miscalculations is reasonable, expecting that all robots will have the same miscalculation, and that miscalculation to be "hating humans" or "wanting freedom" or "wanting obsessively to dress in blue with purple dots every day" IS stupid. Of course, the first two come from our fear that they will be like us, humans. The last one sound ridiculous to us, but that's just because we don't have it.

Except that robots won't go through natural selection... Why do you think a thinking robot is more likely to care about "robot-kind" than "human-kind"? Because every species you see cares more for its own? That's the selfish gene acting. Those genes who made the carriers care for others with the same genes were more likely to go on. But of course, a human-build robot wouldn't go through that. It always amazes me that people can't think outside their own little instincts. Oooh, we shouldn't build robots because they will enslave us!! That's the stupidest idea ever. Robots, just as humans, do exactly what their programming tells them to do.

I don't think this is the solution. I hate windows as much as the next guy, and I hate the fact that it comes bundled with IE, but I don't think anyone (EU) should tell anyone else (microsoft) how they have to sell their particular combination of 0's and 1's.

I know this decision will benefit ME, but that's not the point.

Xorlium