- Hey. where did my bullets go?
I hope they needed huge titties for balance or to fit more electronics or something. Otherwise... WTF Japan. *shakes head*
The internet holds more knowledge than a single human ever could, but machines cannot do anything without direct, explicit directions - told to it by a human. That's the definition of stupid to me: unable to do a thing without having to all spelled out to you.
Once. And then it can be rather damn good at it,
...and then it will try to do it even at times when it's not appropriate, and when a reasoning being wouldn't have tried. Because it's not one. All it can do is what it's told, even if that makes no sense in the greater context of the world with people in it.
That's why a computer is stupid, even a highly-programmed one. It doesn't react to unforeseen situations.
Neither do most people, of course. At least, not well. But then, not everyone's clever.
Robots" will never be as smart as a human
Only assholes start their comment in the subject line.
Computers on the other hand can already be argued to be smarter than a human - if you consider the entire internet as a single computer.
It's obvious that eventually we'll have single computers which are as complex as the entire internet is today. Your statement is thus nonsensical at best.
The difference between a robot and a computer is that the computer is self-mobile at the very minimum.
No, that's not the difference. Buy a dictionary.
More importantly, there is little to no reason for us to build a computer that, being as smart as us, would want to be us. Star Trek's Data is poor planning
Star Trek's Data is a fictional character. I guess that's your problem; you can't tell fantasy from reality.
In CA, I don't know -- it's an expensive place to live. The average (over the entire country) salary of a patrol officer is what, $30k??? (read: a whole LOT less than 200k, but a cop is the very definition of "high maintenance".)
What the actual fuck. No, really, what? You can access Slashdot, but you can't access Google? In fact the average is $51,218. That's quite good money. Most cops will never even discharge their weapon, or have their life seriously threatened throughout the course of their employment. The ones at serious risk of one or both of these things are paid more than the baseline.
Now, let's move on to bad cops, good cops. A cop who lets a cop get away with bad behavior is a bad cop. By this definition there are almost no good cops. The blue shield is real. I think they're overpaid, given that so many cops are not actually doing their jobs, and therefore exist primarily to harass and shake down. Let me know when the massive endemic corruption in policing is over and I'll be more sympathetic to your horribly uneducated and misguided views, some of which would have been corrected using google by an intelligent person.
So to answer your question, it takes a sharp mind and a keen understanding of both economics and history to make a proper defense of free enterprise and individual liberty against the progressive polemics offered by the left in defense of dependency and redistribution as the path to prosperity.
It doesn't take a sharp mind or a keen understanding of anything to know that if society is not maintained then it crumbles.
The ignorance in these two statements is astounding. Seriously, you think rich people never had anything major go wrong in their lives?
The definition of "major" depends on how much money you've got. If you start out rich, you can afford to pay for a major medical. Most of us can't do that. Most people, once they get deeply into debt, will spend literally the rest of their lives there, because the system is actually designed to do that to them.
Stop being deliberately disingenuous. I know from your posting history that it is something of a hobby, but it's tiresome.
Why is it that whenever progressives talk about the price of something I'm the one who gets handed the bill for their profligate ways?
Oh, you're going to pay all the taxes? Thanks! That's a big help for the rest of us.
Oh, you're only paying your share of maintenance of the system upon which you depend, like everyone else? Maybe you're just a selfish fuck.
You're either making a joke or have never delt with "normals" much.
You completely ignored this line: You can even buy a device from most SIP providers which you can hook your POTS phones up to, if you don't want to think
Come back when you are willing to respond to my comment.
There is nothing that can replace oil on the menu except nuclear technologies
At best, you are underinformed. Or, you are lying. Which is it?
$50/mo for a landline is stupid, but make a fair comparison -- you can't rate a system that requires a
You can use freepbx which makes asterisk fairly simple, and use a carrier like flowroute who will provide you all necessary config info. You can even buy a device from most SIP providers which you can hook your POTS phones up to, if you don't want to think. I have a rtp300, but I'm having problems with it. But I also have a PoE SIP phone and some android phones, which have pretty good SIP support.
That might work for people who make and receive calls only at home. Am I the only one who needs voice but not data while riding transit?
I don't know, I have no idea why anyone would bring up a wifi-only plan in the first place. In any case, many buses now have wifi on them.
AT&T has wifi only and low data plans on GoPhone prepaid for Smartphones.
The words "wifi" and "ethernet" do not appear on that page.
If you're doing wifi-only, get yourself a static IP, run asterisk, use any old cellphone with SIP support and wifi and skip AT&T, as they are fuckers of the highest degree. Their prices are beyond fucking ridiculous. They want $50/mo for a land line. I got SIP for about ten bucks a month. My Xperia Play is now our cordless phone, and it's also a neato clock. My server is a $20 pogoplug, but in fairness I bought two of them so I could do HA.
Therefore the reason for a market - that higher prices provide an incentive to produce more of something - doesn't apply in the long run. The petroleum under the ground in the US is a national resource.
What of the air in the atmosphere? Is that not an international resource? Should we not have a market for use of what the atmosphere will bear, perhaps to preserve CO2 (and particulates, and VOCs, etc) at pre-industrial-revolution levels? We now literally have cars whose exhaust is cleaner than their intake in "polluted" cities, where the value of "polluted" is vastly exceeded by some cities. I'd be looking at Beijing if I could see it.
Economics is all well and good if you don't get to ignore externalities. Perhaps we institute a system of eco-economics (see: Mars trilogy) before we find ourselves unacceptably mired in debt to physics.
The idea is to keep the oil in the US, for strategic reasons. If we burn up all the world's oil and keep ours in reserve, we're going to be in good economic (if not ecologic) shape in the endgame. That assumes, of course, that burning all those fossil fuels doesn't doom us first — the ecopalypse outpacing the singularity, if you like, though both labels are sensational. All life will not end, but equally, intelligence (and output) will not reach infinity.