BIG difference. Drug sniffing dogs primarily exist as a way for cops to fuck with the people they always wanted to fuck with. The fact that they are being used to ferret out private property is a big enough deal in the first place, but you would obviously expect them to try to please their trainers, and their trainers want to search THAT GUY for *reasons*. Reasons that they can't say out loud. Maybe the policeman has a hunch... or maybe he's just a racist asshole.

So the actual role of the drug dogs is just to give the cops a reason. That's not their claimed purpose, but the operators of the technology are just looking for excuses to infringe on liberties.

This scenario is, they actually want the dog to sniff out the disease. If you're interested in a dog who can diagnose, you don't gain anything from false responses.

A failed diagnostic dog is still a dog. Someone will likely have use for that dog. Perhaps it costs some dog somewhere a home, but you know that's not strictly the case.

What exactly is the human planning / thinking, and how can we replicate that process without the human?

Possible isn't easy. Dogs are redic capable at stuff like this.

"So you claim that some people can eat nothing and still put on weight? "

Cool, I didn't say that. In fact, I said the opposite. Maybe you should read my words? Nah, fuck that, vomitting out some AC bullshit is faster, rite bro?

The best part is where you freely admit that you are limiting yourself for the rest of your life. That's reasonable and good, but *do you think most people are doing this*? Has it even been a decade since you lost that weight? If you keep that weight off for a decade, you'll be in a single digit percent of formerly overweight dudes. Hell, you can do it. I don't like you, I think you're a cowardly uninformed dumbass, but I genuinely hope you pull it off.

But look around you. Look at the people who have never had weight issues. ...do they do what you do?

Thanks for posting as AC to pile on with the current groupthink. Studies show a lot of things, including:

> Thin inmates who overate to try to gain weight could not.
> Hormonal levels from the blood of men who lost weight and kept it off for years versus ones who never had any weight issues are vastly different- the thin guys have to avoid food for days to generate hormones like the formely fat dudes live with forever.
> Gut biome transplants have resulted in some weight loss.
> Gut biome transplants have resulted in some massive weight gain.

Studies DON'T show that diet and exercise can lose weight and keep it off- not because they lose effectiveness, but because almost no one can keep the diet and exercise regime up. Obviously, you can starve weight off. But thin people are clearly not people who have made a habit of undernourishing themselves- almost no one does that.

You are all going to feel very fucking stupid as the science evolves on this. Good thing you all post as AC and can hide behind "-1 as disagree", "downvotes", and social media tricks to suck the dicks of the other groupthinkers, along with other assorted bullshit. Twenty years after obesity is solved medically, your old comments will look so unbelievably backwards that your best bet will be to pretend you never said them.

Cool, I got modded troll for speaking the truth. Hell, in high school, two brothers- the fat one ate almost exactly half of what the thin one ate. In his 20s, the thinner brother finally had to start paying attention to what he ate (not literally "twice what a normal person would think a meal is"), but he's definitely not fat to this day. The fat one did weight watchers and other shenanigans, and still struggles to have a reasonably body to this day. Yes, he was eating "more than he needed", but you fucking know what? He's essentially been hungry his whole life, and the "amount of food his body needs" is QUITE clearly an amount that he ends up in constant hunger over.

That's the important part about all this. Did you know that the blood of two normal weight men, one who lost weight YEARS ago, and one who never had any tendency towards fatness, have vastly different levels of the hormones linked to satiety and hunger?

Yes, of course you can lose weight by eating less than your body needs to maintain its current weight. But that's never NOT been the case, and "starve yourself thin" is not why thin people are thin. They aren't starving. That's the point. There's very clearly triggers. Assclowns can mod me -1 all they like- it's very clearly the truth.

What about the study where they tried to get inmates to gain weight by overeating, and none could? If you think it's as simple as food consumed, you're willfully blind to reality (presumably, a reality which benefits you in some way, or at least you believe that to be the case).

No one fucking spends years eating twinkies and goddamned ho-hos. Every thin person I know eats random fucking bullshit, and every fat person tries every fucking thing on the planet to lose the weight and monitors their intake. Posting as AC was wise in your case- you have jack shit to add except the same random bullshit that idiots have been spewing while a huge percentage of the population spends more time, willpower, and money trying to lose weight than ever before, all while everyone is gaining weight.

Why would this bother you? This is really cool for anyone who wants blue eyes.

Assault rifles are automatic weaponry, and are regulated under laws from the 1930s and the 1980s (and likely other decades). Assault weapons are an imaginary category dreamed up by politicians that weapons from the 18th century can easily fall under, or not, as the definitions are political and oscillate depending on whatever looks scary.

I think a lot of books would be better served with 4-8 hours of cinema instead of 2, which is ludicrous.

The problem is that books don't follow the "movie flow" (go 60 minutes into most movies and watch an action scene!), detailed, among many other places, here: http://www.davidbordwell.net/e...

Since books are written *to be books*, scenes have to be added to maintain the flow, or subtracted to maintain the flow. This is one reason why you'll see them power through or skip important scenes, giving you the information you need quickly, while being willing to drag out some other lesser scene- movies are as choreographed in their pacing as a sonnet is with its rhymes, and a good movie doesn't make a good book, or a good book a good movie, except by chance, without the writing team adapting it.

So if a book is long and contains action or plot reveals irregularly, it may be possible to break it into multiple movies (and that could easily be correct). But unless you can meaningfully find "separation of acts" in the source material you will be ignoring large chunks of it and making it two hours long, no matter how ruinous.

We can predict that:

- The libertarian theme will be inverted by the writers and directors. The actual message will be something entirely different from what Heinlein said, wrote, and believed.
- There will be product placement, somehow. Just, somehow. If Will Smith can pimp shoes in I, Robot, and Captain Kirk can pimp Nokia in a post-nuclear-apocalyptic, post-capitalistic, post-currency society, then somehow they will ruin that aspect as well.
- They already changed the title. There's zero chance it will have much in common.

Too much gravity to explain galaxies? 85% of it is dark matter.

Too little gravity to explain stuff at larger scales and times than that? 70% is dark energy.

Leaving ~5% as visible matter. If we adjusted our fundamental assumptions by assuming 95% of the universe is everywhere and otherwise undetectable to account for our observations being only 5% predictive, how exact do you think the overarching science really is to begin with?

IMO we'll need new and better detection techniques to make any real progress- or, if we are stuck with the current level of observations for a couple hundred years, maybe it'll be discerned that way. We just have a lot better luck with the former than the latter.

He offered a lot over his life. Really goddamned solid human.

"On the other hand, suppose someone did endow a strong AI with emotion – encoded, say, as a strong preference for one type of experience over another, coupled with the option to subordinate reasoning to that preference upon occasion or according to pattern. what ramifications could that have for algorithmic decision making?"

That's a funny way to spell "robot girlfriend"...

The beta site was poor and added a bunch of bad requirements. It's excellent that Slashdot won't go down the road that so many poor sites traveled. Solid decisions.