(or at a more advanced level, are programming a computer to learn how to learn things)

That is pure hope as well as circular. I don't think he's dismissing the concept so much as dismissing the current field operatives as being anywhere near as far along as they promote themselves to be. He's doing it with a heavy dollop of derision, but I'm seeing that from the opposite side as well. .

Let's simply do a change up on a few words and query as to how the brain stores concepts and can compare, contrast and combine them. .

I read nothing in that article describing 'how' other than hypothetical. It was obvious from the gp that "idea how" referred to knowledge of actual functioning.

Might you then explain to us how a neuron weighs the incoming signals and decides which axons to direct its outgoing signals to?

I know you gave yourself a caveat with "large scale", but those large scales don't really cut it for understanding how the brain fundamentally works, and in order to replicate its functioning in code (develop actual artificial intelligence), we will need to understand that. Add in how the effects of the various chemical baths it is subjected to modify cellular functioning and the prospect is even muddier. (That 'testy' lashing out allusion.)

We don't simply need to know what areas do what and a vague knowledge of how they interact, we need to understand in enough detail what it is they are doing at all levels for us to translate that into a hairily complex software system . A system quite a bit more hairy than one using a movie script database would or could be.

I'd put money on the programmers having coded in a limit (possible variable) on the number of times a specific line of inquiry could be asked before that rather canned response was generated.

Don't project your distaste for shots of yourself onto others. They may not have the same hangups or fixations.

Sure. Perhaps you've heard of bigamy? Alice can't marry Carol because Bob already has a vested marital interest with Alice. For example, if Alice marries Carol and dies, Carol is entitled to 100% of her assets as spouse. But so is Bob.

That's not the policy rationale for the prohibition on bigamy, and while it is perhaps a little better of a reason than administrative convenience, it boils down to the same thing, since the question of marital property is one of the issues that legislatures will have to address when the ban is overturned as it inevitably will be.

On the contrary, tradition is absolutely relevant as to whether something is a fundamental right. Marriage is a fundamental right because it's enshrined in our traditions and collective conscience. ...
Polygamy does not have such a place in our traditions or collective conscience, and therefore is not a fundamental right.

Yep, that's the bullshit argument that people were rolling out against same sex marriage all right. That because it wasn't traditional, it wasn't fundamental.

The core mistake with that argument, whether in the context of same sex marriage or marriage among persons already married, or in larger numbers than two, is that what's fundamental is not opposite sex marriage, or same sex marriage, or polygamous marriage, but simply marriage, without qualification of any kind.

Issues like gender, race, consanguinity, marital status, and number of spouses are all restrictions on that singular fundamental right. Whether they stand hinges on whether they can be justified. Two of them, it transpires, cannot be. Ultimately I think the only restriction that will hold up will be consent, and perhaps consanguinity will have to be reframed in terms of consent if it's to be salvaged.

What in hell were you doing wrong to yield reinstalls twice a year? I've had my machine running for five now and no reinstalls.

For the entire route? Don't think so. Please provide a link of any nature to support that view.

You forgot salesmen, which is probably the biggest block of promoters of these fads.

because, as noted earlier, 3>2. Equal protection is an issue where two groups that are equally situated are treated differently. For marriage, there is no difference between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple. There is a difference between a couple and a larger group, however.

The litigant needn't be the entire group. Marriage is a fundamental right, subject to various restrictions, such as consent and consanguinity. Yesterday, one of the restrictions, at least in some places, was that the genders of two of the spouses couldn't be the same. Today, it's fine nationwide if they're the same.

The restriction to look at now is whether the marital status of each spouse in the marriage at hand is single. Today it has to be. But there's not a good reason for it. (As already mentioned, administrative convenience is not a good reason). So why can't Alice, who is married to Bob, now also marry Carol? Bob isn't marrying Carol; the A-C marriage would be between two people only. You're treating Alice differently merely because she is already married.

It's also not a fundamental right, as polygamy is not part of the traditions and collective conscience of society, except for Mormons.

Marriage is a fundamental right and is extremely broad. Restrictions on marriage, such as requiring the spouses to be of opposite genders, or of the same race, or of the same religion, or of compatible castes, etc. are not inherently part of marriage and are certainly not part of the fundamental right of marriage.

Also, today's events make it clear that tradition is irrelevant; polygamy is practiced today among many groups, and has a long history back into antiquity. Same sex marriage was known in the past but was far more rare.

It will certainly be a massive pain in the ass. But administrative inconvenience is not an adequate justification for denying people their fundamental rights or equal protection of the law. It'll take a while, but just as this took a while, but in time polyamororous marriages will be legally recognized.

Writing software which was then mostly run in house on data stored in house. Smarter banks had teams that did the installation and maintenance in house as well. In the banks I spent those same decades you mention contracting for, they rented their wire transfer software (which I worked on) and we had complete access to the source code and managed the compilations and never once did the financial data leave bank systems for storage. Even the backup machinery was bank owned. Hell, when it was still being used, even the microfiching was in house.

False comparison as moving data to the cloud does not reduce or eliminate the risk you mention. Adding new security risks isn't the brightest thing to do.

You just saw the extent of his evidence.

As well as in your imagination.