Yeah, back in the day when I used to IRC there was a bot that operated similar to this called "devinfo" but instead of surfing the web, It observed/recorded conversations within the chatroom. It was rudimentary and not really AI as much as it was a parrot (it would spit out random factoids if someone said something which matched an entry in the database.) The principle is interesting, but I'm curious as to how it's implementing aspects of the Universal Grammar.

But most of the botnets are Chinese anyhow, so...

Well put. They vacillate between "super power" and "developing nation" depending on the argument... If seeking praise or authority, the former obviously.

I think google's first order of business is to make sure that when skynet goes online, China is taken out first.

I had a hard time reading that due to flagrant violations of English grammar, punctuation and spelling, this does not bode well for your argument that people who can't make the right decisions for themselves have a 'Low IQ' In fact, given your antagonism, based entirely on personal bias and anecdotal evidence, and not on anything empirical, illustrates a lack of understanding of the argument at large. You give people guns, they will shoot someone, you give people easy access to poisons, they will hurt themselves or others. You openly admit that, while you do exercise, that you don't eat a well balanced diet, so at BEST your argument boils down to "I haven't had any ill-effects Yet." For the record: I am 6'1, 195lbs and 10% Body Fat, as a TYPE I diabetic (meaning it's a disease, not self-inflicted,) President/Coach of the KU Judo Team, and otherwise incredibly active, but even I struggle with avoiding soda's, and they can quite literally cause damage to myself. "If your (you're) not ready to stand behind your (right!) ideals as a maxim then you really have no point and no reason for existence in the first place" --- Point noted, eat a bullet, douche.

Out of curiosity, what are your vital stats? (Height and Weight I mean...) Are you sedentary or do you get a decent amount of physical activity? The flaw in your argument is the same that smokers use... Yes, there are smokers who are NEVER effected by their habit, but a lot of people are, negatively, Hence the tax, to dissuade people from doing something bad for them. While you have had no ill-effects (yet) from your massive sugar consumption, your chances of things like type II diabetes, obesity and heart disease are exacerbated by having a poor diet (re: drinking a 24 pack of soda a week.) Would you rather keep drinking soda, then get type II diabetes and be stuck spending a huge amount of money on either subcutaneous or oral insulin prescriptions? You highlight perfectly why we need this tax. People, due to a combination of factors, fail to make the proper choices regarding healthy living, even when confronted with overwhelming scientific evidence. Just because you can haz cheeseburger doesn't mean you should haz cheeseburger.

"Will this stop world hunger, cure world wide aids..." well, considering those are the ONLY TWO PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD, I can see why you're so against a tax that would most likely: A) Lower the rates of Type II Diabetes (being a Type I diabetic that wasn't diagnosed until last year (at the age of 27 @_@) I feel this is a prudent move) B) Help lower obesity rates, which will in turn: i) lower heart disease ii) hypertension and blood pressure iii) problems cause from electrolyte imbalances. C) Lower over all health care costs. That's the theory anyway. One thing that I have learned in my short time on this planet is that we can't be trusted to care for ourselves, or think for ourselves (said with no sarcasm whatsoever.) The average american knows less about proper diet and exercise than they do about world geography, which is downright scary. They would drink whatever Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh told them to without so much as a second thought. We haven't grown up yet, so we might as well accept the necessity of a babysitter.