How likely do you think Trump is to end up as the Republican nominee?
I agree. Everything sounded reasonable up until I got to that point, and then I had to ask how much of what was above wasn't at all correct I was surprised about his statement that one might expect a lower cancer level in space from the lack of carcinogenic chemicals, and was thinking about that when I got to this point, and then updated with "oh, he just doesn't know what he's talking about."
Instead of making obnoxious remarks, why don't you actually read the article?
But does your spiritual protection go up to 11?
Your source is for worldwide. The study in question was US specific, and for the US it is going down. See this graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Actually, replacing coal is happening already. The percentage of plants that are coal has been going down. Moreover, the plants which are coal have been getting progressively cleaner. And as electric-plugins become more common, that means there will be more on-grid storage which will help make solar and wind more common (since one of their big problems is the intermittent nature of the power they supply). Moreover, the study uses the current crop of electric cars, where they are getting more and more efficient, and as electric cars get more efficient they'll compare more favorably in more locations.
Right. So since we have as our aims what is best for the public, this sort of policy makes sense.
The actual genetic situation is substantially more complicated than your summary. Mitochondrial DNA indicates that Ashkenazic Jews (Jews from Eastern Europe) have a large influx of European women ancestors. See summary http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37821/title/Genetic-Roots-of-the-Ashkenazi-Jews/. However, chromosomal DNA shows a major Middle Eastern component to the point where almost any Ashkenazic Jew is easily genetically distinguishable from a generic European http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/12/09/ashkenazi-jews-are-middle-east/. Moreover, around half of all Israeli Jews are not Askenaz but are rather descended from Sephardim and Mizrachim and the like (e.g. from Morocco, Spain, Iraq, Egypt, etc.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel and have thus essentially zero European genetic ancestry.
Hmm? No, not at all. Note that the proposal here is a *proposal that is different from the status quo.* So claiming that this is some sort of attempt to keep the status quo doesn't work. So instead of trying to make what amount to unhelpful accusations about motivation, actually evaluate whether the policy would be a net improvement.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. In the ideal universe all of this would be public already. But we don't live in that universe, and if we insist that all FOIA requests become available to everyone then overall fewer requests will be made. So the compromise proposed by the AC is the correct response, since it means that we'll have a small delay in the info getting public but it will actually get public.
Even better, give it to them as an option: have a variable amount one can use. So they could request say any amount of time up to some reasonable limit (say 6 months), and use that time.
I can't tell if you are joking or serious, but I'll try to explain. The ozone layer is a completely distinct problem from global warming. The presence of ozone is necessary because ozone blocks UV radiation. Ozone does act as a weak greenhouse gas, as you can see on the list of greenhouse gases here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas but it is one of the weakest. Note that if anything, this would mean you'd naively expect a lower temperature when there's more ozone (in fact the actual relation is more complicated). So the idea that the ozone hole would have caused warming is just deeply wrong.
You don't get a chance necessarily to get it right. You will be able to in very limited environments, but at the end, you are going to have to run it in the general world, and in that context, you may only get one chance to get it right.
Sure. Very narrow AI may not have a motivation structure. It isn't clear what a general AI with no motivation would look like. But more to the point, how much do you want to risk that there won't necessarily be a motivation structure?
You are made for carbon. The AI can use that carbon and other atoms for something else. Your atoms are nearby to it and it doesn't need to move up a gravity well. And why restrict what resources it uses when it doesn't need to? And if finds the nearby atmosphere "toxic" then why not respond by modifying that atmosphere? You are drastically underestimating how much freedom the AI has potential to do. We cannot risk it deciding what it does and gamble that it makes decisions that don't hurt us simply because you can conceive of possible ways it might be able to achieve its goals without doing so. That's wishful thinking in a nutshell.