After all, human being the designer of the AI, everything the AI does (thinks, calculates, ponders, measures, decision making, everything) it is a poor copy of human thought process

Everything a human does is limited by our biology, there is a limit to how quickly we can be trained, with more advanced subjects taking ever longer to understand. For example, whats the average age to acquire a PhD?

There is a limit to how much information we store for processing, and a limit to how quickly more information can be fed in.

The beauty of an AI system is the system can be designed from the ground up avoid the restrictions we have. Even if it were true that human's couldn't create something smarter than us, we certainly can create something which matches our intelligence but without the hardware restrictions we have ourselves.

2. There are two reasons why America's work force has gained skill at a slower rate than in the past -- A. The new immigrants to America are simply not as smart as the immigrants that moved to America decades ago Previous waves of immigrants to America came from Europe Current waves of immigrants who land on American soil came from Latin America and the Islamic countries

Bollocks, the first waves of mass immigration into America were from Europes poorest groups, low education, subsistence farmers in a lot of cases or groups with poor relationships to local authorities for whatever reason.

I'm not sure how you plan to measure the gain in skills between people now and then, unless there were lots of scientific studies conducted back then to record how long a new skill takes to learn which can be repeated now.

If you think about it, that was always going to be the outcome.

There is a cost to hiring, training and retaining each employee, so if advances in technology made a task which required 2 men a week to complete, can now be done with 1 man in the same time, it will be cheaper to have 1 man work full time rather than 2 men work part time.

The more specialized the job, and hence the more training needed, the more that is true.

In tasks where the training requirement is very low, you have zero hour contracts being increasingly used. It has higher hiring costs, but the training costs are low and the retaining costs are pretty much non-existent.

As a result of it being cheaper to hire one highly skilled employee full time, but cheaper to hire many lower skilled employee's part/no time, you end up with a growing divide between the bottom and top, with those in the middle get dragged either up or or down and slowly the middle is removed entirely.

Either they totally overestimated the speeding issue, or they underestimated the dissuasive effect of those cameras (which means they work actually pretty well... assuming they are correctly placed).

In both cases, a data set of vehicle speed at the site in the year before and after the cameras were introduced would be very useful.

Case 1: No change in traffic speed
Case 2: Dramatic reduction in traffic speed

Assuming they had that data set.

Case 1: would be kept as quiet as possible because it means the camera were either not needed for safety or not put in for safety.

Case 2: would be shouted from the rooftops (from both the local authority and the company running the scheme) because it would have shown a positive safety effect which is how these scheme are always sold as being a benefit to the community.

The system and safety protocols are working precisely as they were designed.

Actually, the faults were found by chance, there wasn't a specific check for this which could be scheduled and signed off, it was just an engineer noticed something odd while doing other inspections.

So while you are right in that this is not a huge safety issue and we weren't minutes from disaster, I wouldn't agree that the system and safety protocols are particularly brilliant either.

The stories would be of the form:

As a user, I want to change my password...

But they generally won't say that the means to do that should be a link from the user account page or what the steps of the process would be. Now for something simple like a a password change, there are generally well defined industry best practices that both the developer and the end user are probably aware of and so both have a common conception of what should happen. That isn't true for functions specific to the application or domain.

There is a big gap between User Story and implementation specific documentation.

Use the web interface to download the file, then decrypt with a local copy of the encryption tool/key.

What they mean is they can't render a document on the web interface.

I would have intuitively said the other way around.

Since the gravity is so small I would have expected the motion of the smallest particles to be close to random, perhaps close to Brownian motion if you looked at the system over a long enough period of time.

I guess, even though there isn't much to pull the material together, once a small particle is in a crack or void it is very unlikely to ever escape and so the crack does eventually fill in, it seems to me that the process should exist but be much slower than when compared to the effect in a strong gravity field.

As you said, "Intuitively, which we all know is probably wrong"

The coal we use was created before bacteria evolved the ability to decompose trees, so it's not quite as simple as you seem to think...

bollocks

I'm not sure you understood the GP's point. In fact you seem to have interpreted it completely backwards.

Allowing the companies making the loans to go bust, rather than trying to protect them by not allowing Student Loans to be cleared by bankruptcy is the attenuation that you are looking for. It's sends a clear message to other companies loaning money that there are risks and that they should be filtering potential customers.

If economists had known in advance of one of the great depressions that it was going to happen, and releasing the results would of only sped-up the collapse, should they release the information?

The earlier the bubble is burst, the small the correction needs to be and the quicker the recovery afterwards can be. Knowing a burst will happen, it is ethical to make the information public as quickly as possible.

The tricky bit comes when you are 55% sure of a crash, but knowing that making those fears known publicly will definitely cause a crash. How sure do you need to be before it is worth causing a small crash to offset the chance of a bigger crash later on? 60%, 70%, 80%?

I would have thought that lack of crime was the goal of any law enforcement, not number of arrests. Although number of arrests is certainly an easier number to work out.

except that the idea of foreign workers being prefered over domestic, regardless of the reason, is a widely held believe.

Evidence that that is not the case would be just as worthy of publication