The surface of the collapsing star takes an infinite time to cross the event horizon form the point of view of an outside observer? No star which has collapsed has yet turned into a black hole, and no one will at a finite age of the outside universe. The only way to prove the existence of a black hole is to fall through an event horizon. Of course, then you only prove it for yourself, and cannot tell anyone else.

Is that clip supposed to be funny, Chris? My gosh, whatever happened to British humor? From the heights of Monty Python and Benny Hill, it's been a precipitous fall to this.

Cursive exists because it's faster. This is why the letters are joined; it's not for looks. If it was about the latter, they would still be teaching Spencerian script in North America and similar systems elsewhere. There are other benefits: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor...

Misanthrope much?

FTFY

Renewables kill more people per amount of energy generated than nuclear: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/... You'd have to be a misanthrope to invest in that over nuclear.

BS. All human nuclear activity and accidents have in the end not raised background radiation levels appreciably above what it naturally is.

For all the talk of the dangers of nuclear, it has still caused less deaths per amount of energy generated than any other method that has been used to practically generate electricity: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/... If you're not ignorant of these facts, then the only remaining reasons to oppose nuclear are either political (Naomi Klein-style anti-capitalist), or you're simply a misanthrope.

The whole issue of waste has been beaten to death. Reprocessing and breeder reactors leave only a little waste that can't be used for energy, and waste transmutation is a proven concept that further reduces any dangerous waste. With these processes, the actual nuclear waste left over is a tiny amount, and glassification trivially takes care of that.

Nuclear kills the least number of humans per amount of energy generated compared to any other energy source used for power generation, including wind/solar/hydro: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/...

Hydro kills far more people per amount of energy generated than nuclear: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/...

Solar kills a lot more people per amount of energy generated than nuclear does: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/...

I don't disagree that the body provided inputs can be simulated, but that is non-trivial because the brain-body system forms a very complicated set of feedback loops. My point is not that human-like AI is unachievable, but that most here are underestimating what, and how long, it will take. Regarding your question as to the minimum feedback needed, Damasio goes to some extent to address this; really, look up his latest book in the library (it helps that he's a great writer and it's easy to read). As for making intelligence that is non-human like so you can avoid having to deal with the embodied cognition issue, I discuss this in my post here: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I think it's silly to suppose there will be humans left 500 years from now, let at the 1K bottom rung of your ladder.

Indeed. It should be required reading for AI researchers as well, and I say this as someone with a graduate degree in comp.sci. and more than a passing professional interest in AI.