Don't black holes in our Univers continue to expand? The mass these things chomp up isn't all emmited by gamma rays right? Isn't that mass contributed to the 2d space on the event horrizen eventually or does it never technically get there? I guess my question is, if this guy is correct...where is all that additional mass? If we're surrounding a 4d black hole on the event horrizon why aren't we happily getting more and more mass as it chomps away?

Rape is far more personal and if someone is going to torture someone else chances are the vicitm isn't around to talk about it. Imagine associating that same feeling you get after you have great sex with someone to hate, mistrust, confusion, and general anxiety. I've dated several women that were raped in their past...it takes one of the few things in life that are supposed to be the best and destroys it. It's like someone reaches into your life and steals away every happy moment you might have with someone. Everyone seems to get a little bit fucked up differently from it...but don't underestimate someone having the power to mess with the chemicals in your brain for the rest of your life all through one act of violence.

But the fact that it does work better means we're either missing a part of the picture that is obviously important or the AI version is leveraging quirks with the system that no current model we have represents. I'm shocked to read that anyone would be comfortable just ignoring the why of something just so we can progress beyond our understanding. If we don't understand the why then we're missing something very important that could lead to breakthroughs in many other areas. Do not let go of the curiosity that got us here to begin with.

I agree with everything you just said. The point I was trying to make though is that all these new start-ups that are looking for just the young blood don't see it that way. These new start-ups already decided on their hot new buzzword compliant tech that's going to help them get that VC money. So regardless of what is a more realistic approach to a problem...things are the way they are for a reason. But I can see a lot of people are really upset about that.

Repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true either. You said a study showed workers with more experience are more productive. Being productive has nothing to do with being creative. I completely agree with you that someone that knows a problem area best are the most likely to solve a problem...this doesn't mean the person has to live with the problem for 40 years before they decide to fix it though. However someone that is just being introduced to a new area are also more likely to identify the problems better because all the old folks have learned to just live with the same problems. Again, being productive has nothing to do with being creative.

My assumption that you quoted was "When you consider that the hot new thing all the startups want to write in changes every 5-6 years it's no surprise that older workers don't hold as much value. " This is not an assumption. It's basically a stated fact. Older workers do not hold as much value and when you're comparing resumes between older workers and new workers with newer technology the newer workers are actually more likely to have the correct skillset. To someone in HR they are not going to see a guy with a decade plus of experience in J2EE as something better than a guy with 2 years experience in the language the job is actually for..when you're looking for coding grunts or a group of guys that might spit out a few good ideas once or twice in their career. I don't see why you're failing to connect those same dots. You basically seem to hold no value to a younger developer. Kids in grade school can code...kids in high school can come up with better ideas than some of us will in our entire careers. The truth is someone that has been doing the same thing for 40 years honest truly probably...isn't going to be the next best thing since sliced bread. Their ideas are spent, they've had a thousand chances to shine through the ranks. Their value to most in HR is in stability, training, and high level system design. Not in coming up with the next best thing since sliced bread. To be honest if they had such a great idea they're probably making enough money and have enough experience under their belt to market and sell it themselves instead of working for another asshat boss.

So please explain to me again why older workers are just perfect and exactly what every company should be hiring instead of a young whipper snapper? They aren't going to work late nights, they aren't going to try and impress the boss, and they are more likely to want to stick with what they know works than to try new things. Show me anyone over 35 that works 12 hour days coding non stop and I'll probably shoot the guy myself for not having an self respect by that age.

Productive != creative.

At least the places I've worked older workers are more interested in keeping the status quo. When you consider that the hot new thing all the startups want to write in changes every 5-6 years it's no surprise that older workers don't hold as much value. They certainly have value in system design and higher level work. Throwing them at coding in a language that has only been around for a few years doesn't make lot of sense. Certainly language of choice is the only reason for the age difference. Those with a family and mortgage simply by definintion are less likely to take risks or are even at an income level where they are pushed to impress the boss / start their own company. Their motivation went out the door a while ago. Studies have been done on this (citation needed). So I fail to see why it's a surprise that startups focus on cheaper labor (younger) that are more likely to be motivated in ways someone with a family and mortgage simply are not. Ask a man with 3 kids, a demanding wife, and a mortgage to stay working a 14 hour shift to meet that next agile milestone...see how long he sticks around before changing jobs.

And I spelled "dumbest" wrong...damn you internet for submitting my opinion about his opinion so fast that I didn't bother to proof read it first....I'm never using this damn thing again.

Without the Internet the majority of the people that read his opinion wouldn't have. This is one of the dubest opinions I've seen in a while. Nothing is perfect. Not a new baby, not a new child, not a new marriage, and certainly not the god damn Internet. You don't burn down your house, kill your child, murder your wife just because of a few flaws do you? Well ok some people do.

I think you're confusing a personal moral you have with the obligation a country has to defend itself.

We have laws for a reason. How many industries are built from laws being on the books? How many industries are protected by laws? My point is when society is faced with the decision between unemployment rates over 20% vs enacting a law preventing companies from using said magical robots...what do you think will happen? Sure some will move to shit hole countries, but most will remain right where they are. This is no different than H1B, outsourcing, immigration. Perhaps the law will state no company may own a class X AI to replace any human capable of doing said work. However the loophole being any human can own a class X AI and employ it anywhere but they are limited to just 1. Everyone benefits, human skills transfer to robot skills and we are left with several generations incapable of doing anything other than playing VR games.

I hate it when I hear about how horrible the world will be when tech xyz comes along. We've been around for some 65 years capable of completely destroying the human race at the push of a button. The risks will be contained just like with everything else. But I guess if we're not worried about it, it just might happen.

Or perhaps 20 year olds that want to hang out with a 40 year old ex physics major are on average more intelligent than the average 20 year old. I for one have met plenty of really stupid 20 year olds.

They've done studies on this. It has nothing to do with cognitive decline. It has to do with the average age someone starts a family and begins to raise kids of their own. They are less likely to be willing to spend hours of their "free time" working on a solution because there are far more important things they could be doing. Once you're married and "settled down" it starts to take a toll on how much you work on actual work. I wish I could cite something but I don't exactly have the time to...

You've obviously never gone through this before. There is a reason why later IE versions have compatibility mode. The company I work for, not own, went through this in the past few years to get rid of ie 6. Even keeping the browser in compatibility mode does not mean you're free from having to make changes. Every single application has to go through heavy regression testing. But exactly what company has only web based applications to worry about when upgrading to a new platform?

Recently I just received a notice that there are issues with jquery versions preventing ie9 from being in ie9 mode. I have no idea what those issues are but it means every single application has to update their jquery version, repackage, redeploy, and retest every single browser side test script to make sure just changing the ie9 mode isn't going to break something. Who was using things like jquery when ie6 first came out? The importance of libraries like jquery is to prevent issues like what you're describing and to even allow you to move between browsers. But again, who was using it when ie6 first came out?

Do you even remember trying to build applications that worked for both ie6 and other browsers? MS fucked the world, and now it's the world's fault they're finding it difficult to upgrade?

I'm confused how writing an application to work on a target platform is "badly broken software"? From internal apps to vendors, that's just how things have always been done. While there are countless multiplatform solutions that could insulate companies from some upgrades, the simple fact is MS has for several decades now done everything they could to prevent such solutions from working. ie6 is a great example of MS trying to protect its turf. Even upgrading in a J2EE environment on the same server from say weblogic 8 to weblogic 10 requires applications to be modified.

I think I took the wrong approach here. Perhaps we should start with a few definitions.

A World Leading Power: A nation or other political entity having the power to influence the course of world events.

A World Ruler: Has never existed and yet most anti US sentiment seems to come from this belief.

The US does not have a single military action and does not enforce economic sanctions on any other nation that other leading world powers care enough about to do anything to prevent such actions. No nation alone in the middle east could be considered a leading world power. All OPEC nations combined however could be considered a leading world power.

You asked a very specific question. Why is person Y not seen as important as person X in the global landscape. I answered that question but you either didn't like the belief that the US was a leading world power or you believed I was stating we were a leading world ruler. We are involved in the middle east because very very rich men in those countries and in charge of those countries decided to do business with companies based out of leading world powers. We don't even blink at the horrible acts in Africa for a reason. Is that fair? Who is crying for them? There is so much emotion pumped into anti US sentiment by very powerful people looking to continue to control the populace long after the US is no longer involved. They direct the attention outside of the country so those that reside in them do not have to hate the real government that rules over them. It obviously works very very well. It's just ashame that the countries that are finally figuring this out are not well organized enough to prevent similar assholes from acquiring power too.

To answer your question, no we will not try to be nicer. I don't think we'll be making the mistake of another Iraq or Afghanistan war again anytime soon. With civil war, Iran, and supposedly friendly nations training their populace to hate America...I imagine we'll be involved heavily in the middle east until we stop doing business in the middle east. That isn't likely to stop anytime soon unless alternative power sources can be found or if rich business men suddenly decide they value your opinion over their pocket books. No nation has a government free from corruption or is in any way shape or form capable of virtuous acts. Every nation conducts their business in a mannor that supports the increase success of their position in the future. For some nations this involves aquiring nuclear technologies and for other nations it involves becoming a critical cog in the economic machine. Whatever nation you reside in is no different. There is a level of hate and mistrust that will force the US out of the middle east. The funny thing is, absolutely nothing will improve for any soul in the middle east once that happens. Oil money will still buy expensive military toys. Civilians hell bent on killing each other because of some internal clash that should have died out decades ago will still hate each other. Governments will still be corrupt and sell out the rights of their people to rich fat cats. It's all a farce designed to control the populace by redirecting that hate they feel for their position to an external force. It works quite well...in a hundred or so years the middle east will look like any dried up oil town in Texas and that's ignoring the global warming effects. As long as the entire global economic structure is based off of the belief we will have an unending suply of oil from the middle east, we will continue to be involved there. Our survival is linked to this supply. Just as the middle east's survival is linked to the demand for this supply.

I may have been off by about 70 years though. Your new policing state asshats to hate will probably be China by around 2030 or so. I'm all for you spreading your hate towards them today if you can but I guess we'll have to wait. Stop killing each other, unify and figure out wtf or where the fuck your children are going to live in a 100 years when the gravy train stops. There is no equal distribution of the wealth that is being soaked up from beneath your feet. That is the real cost and everyone in the middle east has learned to hate entirely the wrong group of people for it. Hate your real rulers. Hate the companies that sell your fortune...not the consumers.

Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2012/12/03/what-happens-when-america-no-longer-needs-middle-east-oil/