Comment Slim chance (Score 1) 720
My recommendation is to just go for a small firm where you have a better chance of getting to know people there, and have less stringent hiring practices. That's probably your best shot?
Already, computers are waaay more powerful than human minds, we just haven't figured out how to steer all this power towards actual intelligence.
You're either severely overestimating today's computing technology or severely underestimating human brain power. Scratch that, you're most likely severely doing both. As of today, computers are only good at reproducing very specific tasks and doing them extremely well (most times). Solving massive computational problems does not equate intelligence!!!!
Intelligence: Intelligence has been defined in many different ways such as in terms of one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity and problem solving. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Like countless folks have already said, modern computational technology has barely touched the surface of intelligence. There's no scratch there yet, not even a finger print blemish. You'll struggle to make comparisons with even the dumbest living organism on earth, like for instance the amoeba, against the likes of today's AI. I for one don't expect we'll make any major break-through in AI until we actually figure out how our own damned brains work.
Simply change the tax structure on commercial trucks which are the ones that do all the damage to the roads and highways.
Doesn't a gas tax effectively do that? Heavier vehicles usually indicate heavier guzzlers?
I'm saying, instead of working their asses off to produce results, which has landed them in the question of political and monetary bias, they should work their asses off first, to include ALL the criteria necessary to produce a REAL guess. I view this as missing over 2/3 of the data. So naturally their endeavors seem like a snake oil cure or a carnie blathering crap into a bullhorn in front of the freakshow tent.
Oh I'm sure they're *trying*. The problem is it's difficult to judge how good their models are without 1000's of years of solid data. While they do have tons of data I'm sure it's no where near what they'd want to have. A lot of the data they have to rely on from these past events has to be gathered from physical records which is arguably not as good as measuring and observing it today. Not even mentioning we're talking about us altering the current environment in ways that have not been seen naturally occurring for thousands of millennia making any climate modelling increasingly difficult because we're in uncharted territory.
So I think to say they shouldn't say anything at all until they have ALL criteria necessary to produce a REAL guess is a bit too blindly optimistic. It's true it would be ideal in a perfect world, but in reality we'd be sitting here for a hundred years or more before we'd be able to make conjectures following that rule. That's just not extremely practical. The debate in that arena has to stay healthy for it to evolve and the fact that scientists readily admit mistakes with new findings is a good sign. I'm heads over heels against sensationalizing the topic but to sit here and ignore the problem until the science is flawless would be a grave mistake. There's absolutely nothing wrong with us being good custodians and keeping our one and only home clean. It would be the responsible thing for us to do.
The Earth warms, it cools, it warms, it cools. Models will NEVER be accurate enough for any real predictions, causes or illustrations. Why? Because the input to the models will NEVER have enough, or even appropriate data. If we don't have the Oceans data, and we don't, as highlighted recently by the breakthrough in mapping, we couldn't even begin an approach to modeling the future. What else don't we have?
Yes, it's true it's not 100% accurate... but so are you saying we should give up trying? You can use that argument to vaporize all of the research & theoretical sciences. Yikes.
It is more akin to UPS charging both the sender and the recipient of the package for the same service.
I thought that's what I said but I must have made the wording too difficult to follow lol
Not the GP. The CEO at my work gets $100+k a year, and he rips off government funding, rips off his employees (steals directly from our pay), and he's been known to steal software licences, pirate software and video. I'd bet that he uses the IT budget to buy his home computer equipment, too.
So there's your citation.
Wow, a solid citation. You do realize you're only hurting your argument by singling out a single person out of a world of 6B people as proof that rich people cheat. Don't make yourself look blatantly ignorant, back up your opinions man. Besides, I don't think most people would consider a CEO that makes money in the $100+K/year a CEO of much of anything. Many regular white collar jobs make more money than that. That's probably upper-middle class at best, which in fact works against your conclusions.
They use this science to incite wars in Libya, Syria, Palestine, now Ukraine. And if US burns through all Ukrainians, they'll continue ther wars with Poles, Estonians and others. I'm a Pole - that's why I'm freaking out. I want no part in this madness.
You can't be a Pole, if you were you'd already be suspicious what Russia's intentions from the very beginning. The truth is, there is close to zero appetite for war from any of the western nations of any kind, with any kind of involvement. Especially the United States. All everyone wants is Russia to leave Ukraine. If Putin is so *desperate* to avoid conflict in Ukraine then then please explain why he's even there to begin with? Oh, he only wanted Crimea, I forgot. But nothing else, he has promised! Don't worry! Anyway, if you were truly a Pole you'd be taking note of Putin's actions, not his words. Nobody wants a war, not even Russia, not the West, nobody. In fact Russia would much, much prefer to do this quietly via political maneuvering and flexing its military muscle rather than actually starting a conflict. However if everyone did as you suggest and stood aside, it'll be a few years and Putin will do it again with yet another country. Just wait and see.
You're right on WW1, you're right on Iraq, but you're wrong on this one and you're also conveniently ignoring WW2. History doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme. Stick with the facts, Russia unequivocally annexed Crimea. I'm sorry but taking land from another country is sort of considered a "big deal" if you know what I mean.
If the rebels are ever confirmed to have shot down the plane all of Russia's denials fall apart like a house of cards. Caught red handed. Except now there's international blood on their hands instead of just Ukrainian. Unfortunately for Ukraine, nobody really cares about them except their neighbors. So on that note, you can be guaranteed they will stop at nothing to prove rebels were not at fault. I have no doubt there will be people that will be "silenced". The stakes are simply too damn high.
What is embarrassing, though, is for those who don't understand something to claim that their "belief" in it demonstrates that they have a greater comprehension of science than someone who says he or she "doesn't" believe it.
I've witnessed and do witness over and over. Whether it's about evolution, dark matter, global warming, etc. It's just a basic fallacy of human nature. I know something you don't (even though I'm not privy to a complete understanding of how it works) therefore I must be smarter than you and you must be dumb... but don't you dare challenge me any questions on it because I will get super pissed. Kind of the applied definition of "ignorance" in action.
Or in other words, believing in science others have painstakingly proven for you is not an automatic cure for ignorance. When you put it that way, it's common sense isn't it?
With your bare hands?!?