You should have placed the emphasis where I explain the reason for the pole shift. Chuckle.

-

Your comparison to writing code doesn't apply, at all.

There are approaches to making this sort of brain. One option is scanning an existing brain and coping the data into the digital brain. That gives you a mental-clone of the brain-donor. The other way is to start with the equivalent of a blank-slate fetal brain and allow it to develop and self-wire. Then you raise and teach it exactly like an infant.

Both approaches completely avoid the issue that we have essentially zero understanding of intelligent consciousness, and that we don't have the faintest clue how to program for it.

-

If scientists persist in trying to play God with projects like this, they are going to unleash the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse:
War, Famine, Death, and Petulance.

-

You overlooked the other cause mentioned in my post.
Perhaps my post should be subject to a recall lol

-

I say that as someone who actually agrees with you that their use of "denialist" is ad hominem and thus an anti-scientific tactic.

My point was actually affirming the validity of ad hominem as a basis to decline to waste one's time fruitlessly engaging an argument as if it were reasonable and rational. If you go back and read my previous post more carefully you'll find it would be laughably foolish for anyone to argue I was wrong :)

-

I think perhaps you didn't fully read my post..... because you're rather earnestly arguing that Santa Claus isn't responsible for the polar shift. Chuckle.

-

The article states that this effect was detected specifically as a deviation from the expected motion due to continental drift.

Is it possible that your "doubt" has become self-reinforcing circle cutting you off from significant information? You to doubt it because you didn't read the article, and you didn't read the article because you doubted it. You assumed the scientists were stupid and incompetent, and as long as you assume they are stupid and incompetent you don't hear or accept any of the the facts and evidence they report.

-

Trying to prop up the warmist scientific hoax with the Darwinist scientific hoax? We skeptics ain't stupid enough to fall for that one.

Waring: The above post was manufactured in a facility that processes satire. May contain traces of satire.

-

So, you're saying it's kinda like the way my weight hasn't changed but my pants don't fit anymore?

-

Yet another story from the warmist conspiracy, piling more so-called "science" on top of their propaganda.

The reason for the pole shift is simple. Due to a toxic spill of lead and cadmium paints, Santa Claus was forced to move his workshop slightly. The Elves are no longer permitted egg-nog while on duty.

P.S.
I'm a climate skeptic goddamnit. It really pisses me off when warmists keep calling me a denialist. Only people with no real evidence to back up their case resort to name-calling. Until someone can prove to my satisfaction that the pole shift wasn't caused by a toxic spill at Santa's workshop, my explanation is just as valid as any warmist's "theory".

-

If most of the applications at issue were withdrawn, and withdrawn because they were non-compliant with being tax-exempt, then it is entirely possible that any particular probing-questions could have been directly related to whatever issue made them non-compliant. *If* they were valid questions investigating genuine tax-exemption issues, then claims of persecution do not exactly indicate any attack actually existed at all.

From the available story so far, it does seem some sort of abuse occurred. I want more details to come out. It seems some people may have seriously abused their positions violating rules to "attack" the perfectly valid applications of groups they disliked. Which would be seriously fucked up, and people should be fired. But if these applications turned out to be invalid, and the investigations were directed to those non-compliance issues, and the investigations were comparable to other investigations of non-compliant applications, then this story could be a tempest in a teacup.

I want it investigated thoroughly. I want more details. If investigators were violating rules and harassing perfectly valid applicants for ideological reasons, then I want them fired.

-

I think the illegal/violations language we've been using is a poor fit to the situation, and may be muddying things.

Organizations were applying for tax-exempt status. Obviously those applications should/will only be approved if the organizations activities were and will be within the legally defined limits of what tax exempt organizations are allowed to do. I was saying that it appears that in at least some of these cases applications were withdrawn because investigations identified problems where organizations were not within the legal bounds for tax-exempt approval. Note that I specifically did not suggest the organizations had any intent to break any laws. I specifically indicated that any invalid applications could be innocent mistakes "perhaps due to ignorance or error in what non-profits are permitted to do".

Further note that I was not addressing the entirety of the situation, I was not claiming investigators did nothing wrong. I was replying to "150 of the cases have been closed and no group had its tax-exempt status revoked". I felt that was a flagrantly out-of-context quote, selectively editing out the fact that "some withdrew their applications". I felt it gave a rather misleading impression that there was a pure witch-hunt against categorically innocent victims. The investigators' job is to investigate tax-exemption applications and ensure improper ones do not get approved. And when an organization's name and activities have a strong political interest of any stripe, and they push up against the limits of what is permissibly under tax-exempt status, it warrants closer examination than a non-ideological "feed the homeless" group. And yeah, it looks like some "highly motivated" investigators went way over the line in that closer scrutiny. It looks like some people definitely need to get fired.

A lot of the coverage seems to suggest the existence of a "Tea-Party-in-the-name" pile is itself the problem. Maybe it's a nitpick, but I think that's slightly off target. I think any and every politically-affiliated term is good reason to toss applications in piles for routine closer scrutiny. But it's seriously fucked up if agents are personally grabbing the cases of groups they dislike and violating standard procedures going after them.

I still want more more details to come out. If there was a flood of inexperience Tea Party groups filing a flood of non-compliant tax-exempt applications, and if it turns out those investigations were comparable to other non-compliant applications, then the story may be overblown. But as I said, it's seriously fucked up if agents were selecting their own cases, breaking rules, harassing applications that were in fact valid. There need to be strict mechanisms in place to prevent that sort of thing. I don't want groups of any political persuasion getting away with invalid tax-exemptions, and I don't want anyone hijacking their government position against anyone they dislike. That needs to get smacked down, hard.

-

Facebook is turning into a David Lynch movie.
For those unfamiliar with David Lynch movies, Rabbits.

-

Yep.

No, the supported the Democrat over the Republican. And you can confirm that by looking at the 2004 and previous elections where minorities supported the white Democrat over the white Republican by almost exact same margins. Racists are not exactly inclined to join the Democratic party because that's where all the "brown people" are, and minorities are not exactly inclined to join the Republican party because that's where all the bigots are. It's a self-reinforcing cycle. The fact that the Democrats ran a black candidate for president hardly budged any of the percentages. Few racists were going to vote Dem no matter who ran, and few minorities were going to vote Repub no matter who ran.

-

There's itty-bitty little detail you overlooked, in your rant about "black racists" voting for Obama just because he's black, and against the "virtuous and capable of leadership" of his opponent merely because he was white. The one itty-bitty detail you overlooked is that, even with the historic first African American running for president, the percentages on the African American vote hardly budged. The fact is that African Americans voted as they did because almost 100% of them vote Democratic, have been voting that way for decades, and have been doing so for good reason.

And to avoid redundant posts, this reply also goes out to the multitude of other Anonymous Cowards who also posted whinging about (paraphrase) "those damn racist blacks" who all voted for Obama "just because he's black".

-