Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The last sentence in the summary... (Score 1) 199

actually weather forecasters have pretty good accuracy, >90%, out to abot four days.

For who? For how much of the land? In any case, that's not even possible, because if I check three sources for my area, they will say three different things at least two days out of three.

Comment: Re:Honestly, rifles are not the problem (Score 1) 382

by Archangel Michael (#48040405) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

Suicide by gun, doesn't raise the suicide rates. Great Britain has a similar suicide rate to the US (virtually identical), but almost none by gun. People who want to kill themselves, will kill themselves. It simply a anti-gun progressive lie to included suicides by gun in any anti gun debate.

Comment: Re:the solution: (Score 1) 382

by swillden (#48040177) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

Or are you under the illusion that this one amendment is sacrosanct while they crap all over the rest of it?

Are you arguing that because they crap all over the rest of the Bill of Rights, we should allow them to crap all over the second as well? Really?

Obviously, the correct solution is to required our government to obey all of the law -- and in the extreme (and unlikely, I think) event that we fail to achieve that via political processes, we'll have to make use of our arms to retake control (our arms and the unwillingness of the US military to fight fellow citizens; both are necessary). The "crapping all over all the rest of it" makes holding onto the second amendment vastly more important, not less.

Comment: Re:the solution: (Score 1) 382

by Archangel Michael (#48040093) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

The murder rate in the US is vastly higher than any other developed nation.

Actually, it isn't. If you exclude the top few cities (with strict gun control laws), the murder rate is actually equal to, or less than most other countries. Inconvenient facts like Chicago, with its near total ban on guns, is suffering from the gun violence capital of the world. Take out Chicago, DC, New Orleans, NewYork City (Liberal utopias), and you'll find a different statistic.

Here is a list of inconvenient gun control facts:

Comment: Re:Bruce Perens (Score 1) 170

by Archangel Michael (#48039855) Attached to: Back To Faxes: Doctors Can't Exchange Digital Medical Records

It is time to stop looking at (R) and (D) labels, and making kneejerk judgements regarding them. I agree with parts of both (D) and (R) platforms and positions their politicians take. But in aggregate, I hate them equally, but for different reasons.

In the case of ObamaCare/ACA, it is the idea that we can fairly equalize access to health care simply by mandating it, with NO OTHER changes being made (not really). The whole idea of mandated coverages, and whatnot skirt the real issue, scarcity of healthcare resources. We haven't even addressed this, and yet it is becoming clearer every day that the ACA is NOT going to be able to do much of anything that it promised, while at the same time creating even more burdensome bureaucratic bullshit on top. Simply put, rose tinted glasses isn't going to help here.

When my healthcare practitioner takes my temperature and blood pressure, and then has to click 17 different items to fulfill requirements set forth by ACA/HIPA etc etc, then there is a real problem. The Lobbyists and Politicians don't give a shit about real world results, they just want to line up their "I voted for/against ___________" tally marks and get elected.

FOSS isn't going to solve this mess, having a free and open Government will. Requiring all laws be available for review by the public for a period of time, would have solved this boondoggle before it even happened. So I blame the "You'll have to vote for it, to see whats in it" crap that is symptomatic of the problem. And if you like Nancy Pelosi, you're part of the problem. It is criminal what she pulled, and every one of the (D) who voted for it, whether you like the ACA or not, should be voted out of office for participating.

Personally, I do not trust the government. Period. If you do, then don't complain about cops shooting unarmed people, NSA spying on you, IRS auditing you, and not using Plastic bags in California.

Comment: Re:"artificial intelligence" has become a religion (Score 1) 90

like i said a few comments back, you've been watching too much sci-fi and have no concept of how this stuff is actually made

I've been consistently ignoring such snide remarks and I'm going to continue doing so... but my willingness to be so patient with your snark is wearing thin. Cut it out or I'll simply stop responding.

As for whether or not I know "how this stuff is actually made", you might consider that I'm a professional software engineer with 25 years' experience, currently working for Google. I know quite a lot about how "this stuff is actually made", including familiarity with current machine learning techniques, since I'm a guy who makes it. I also personally know a couple of people who've worked on Watson (I worked for IBM for 15 years, including on Watson Labs research projects)... and they agree with my perspective on this question: AI is clearly possible; we don't yet know how to create it because we don't understand intelligence.

***we already understand "artificial intelligence" it's just code***

You can argue in exactly the same way that programmers in the 1950s understood how to implement knowledge graphs. Or computer vision. Or voice recognition. After all... they're "just code". Never mind that programmers of that era had no conception of the modern algorithms needed to actually make those things work. What they lacked wasn't just horsepower, but fundamental understanding of the problems and the solution. They couldn't build a computer system capable of driving a car that was infeasible only because it couldn't compute quickly enough, they couldn't build such a system at all.

the notion that "artificial intelligence" is something that we can 100% "undesrtand" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what "artificial intelligence" actually's just software running on hardware, all programed by humans

Certainly it will be software running on hardware, all programmed by humans. Humans that understand what intelligence actually is and how it works... something that we don't yet know. To get a little more specific, it appears that human "intelligence" is actually a collection of several different components, with several emergent properties. It's long been thought that "self-awareness" is the key emergent property, but many animals have self-awareness and yet lack the crucial ability that makes humans distinct.

The current best thinking is that the distinction is a particular form of creativity. Specifically, the ability to create abstract explanations. We certainly know how to write computer programs that manipulate abstractions, but they're abstractions of the programmer's creation, not of the program's. We need to learn how to write software that is able to create and criticize its own conjectured solutions to problems. We do not yet know how to do that.

We know it's possible, because we possess computers that can do it. In our heads.

I linked you to the Universal Declaration of Human should at least have a cursory undestanding of how civil rights works in the's absolutely ridiculous that you think I need to proffer up some sort of link to prove humans have free will

There are several misunderstandings implicit in this sentence.

First, I didn't ask for a link to prove humans have free will. You mentioned current legal definitions of free will. I asked for a cite to explain what such legal definitions are.

Second, you seem to think that civil rights are somehow related to free will. I don't see any such link. It's perfectly possible to have free will without having any civil rights, and it's equally possible to have civil rights without free will. I suppose you're trying to argue that we have established systems of human rights in order to protect the expression of free will... but that's clearly a second or third-order effect.

Third, you seem to think I'm questioning the existence of free will. I'm not. I don't think our perception of free will is in any way incompatible with the notion that our brains are deterministic machines... and I also don't think that they necessarily are. Quantum effects may well add a non-trivial amount of non-determinism to our thought processes. Such non-determinism may be a necessary component of what we perceive as free will, or it may not. We don't (yet) know. And it's possible that this non-determinism is both fundamental and is the mechanism by which a supernatural influence (e.g. our souls) play into the picture. Actually "supernatural" isn't quite the right word, because if there is such an effect it is also natural, just not part of the physics we understand.

Comment: Re:Profitable, if self-contradictory (Score 1) 442

Chernobyl exclusion zone where life is, if not exactly thriving, at least doing all right.

It should be noted that wildlife in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is doing better than wildlife outside the zone. Apparently the biggest limiter to wildlife prospering is the presence of humanity....

Comment: Re:Drug charges (Score 1) 221

by drinkypoo (#48038967) Attached to: Which Cars Get the Most Traffic Tickets?

We restrict access to certain drugs for (mostly) very good reasons.

All the evidence shows that this is nonsense, that you always cause more problems than you solve because you drive addiction underground and people wind up taking drugs of varying quality because of their illegal nature.

If you can explain to me the upside to society of someone having a cocaine or heroin addiction then I'll concede the point.

If prohibition prevented use, you would have a point.

Comment: Re:Study is quite incomplete (Score 1) 221

by CrimsonAvenger (#48038869) Attached to: Which Cars Get the Most Traffic Tickets?

I've been driving for 25 years and never received any ticket for going too fast

Oddly enough, I've been driving even longer without a speeding ticket, even though I speed about as often as not. Slow down a bit toward the end of the month, when the traffic cops are looking to their quotas, and you don't usually have too many problems....

Comment: Re:Kill two birds with one stone (Score 1) 121

by CrimsonAvenger (#48038631) Attached to: Aral Sea Basin Almost Completely Dry

We know just fine how to build nuclear-powered ocean vessels. Maybe Congress can give the corporate welfare to the MIC to build iceberg haulers instead of battleships.

Two things:

1) noone has ever built a nuclear-powered battleship.

2) noone has built a battleship at all since WW2.

Okay, three things: if you want to use nuclear power to tow icebergs, how about using nuclear power to desalinate seawater instead? Saves you the trouble of having to build a ship around your nuclear power plant....

One small step for man, one giant stumble for mankind.