If only getting pregnant always required long, conscientious, deliberate effort, and avoiding pregnancy were the easy result of one night's drunken whim.
But that's now how it is, and this proposal won't make it so.
You say that. What if deactivating this "chip" requires a trip to the doctor? What if you get to specify the exact circumstances under which it is permitted to change modes and one of them is that you confirm you decision daily for six weeks? See, this technology could give you most of what you want, if universally installed.
An ability to perform more calculations then a human mind does not mean it will beat us.
True. But it does provide the capacity to "beat us".
First, we self assemble from readily obtainable materials out of a self regulating biosphere. Where as this machine would have to be built and maintained by our industry.
Say rather "by industry". Including the word "our" is unnecessarily specific.
Second, there are fucking billions of us. So sure.. we might be able to build some machines that are smarter then ONE person but there are again... fucking billions of us.
Great point. Except that digital entities can be duplicated with stupifying ease while us biologicals require decades of education.
Third, the machine will have its programming directed by us. It will at best be a slave of whomever paid for it to be created.
By definition, adaptive code of sufficient complexity to be considered artificially alive won't be slave to anyone.
Fourth, that programming will be directed at preforming some task where as our task is generally the propagation of our genes with everything else being some sort of weird byproduct.
Again, by the time we've got code that fits the definition of artificial intelligence, it's no longer just an expert system.
Fifth, we have hundreds of millions of years of evolution behind our programming. And I don't think any collection of programmers is going to surpass it in the next century.
Unfortunately, almost all of that evolution was literally trial-and-error, mostly error. We've got a whole bunch of DNA that is literally not expressed because it's useless. That evolution was about getting from primordial slime oozes to walking upright. The lessons "learned" in the middle about how to do photosynthesis while we were ooze-like isn't even vaguely useful to us. Also, aside from symbiosis with the AIs we're talking about here, we have nowhere to go. Evolution takes so long, a decent climate change on this planet and we're screwed where AI can iterate purposefully to solve its problems.
Eventually might there be robotic rivals to humanity? Sure... but not any time soon.
Soon? As in this afternoon? No, probably not. Soon as in within a decade? Again, probably not. But really, once we develop one instance of something truly self-programming and "intelligent", its complexity growth will be very rapid, just like all of our technologies have been. Just like... flight. The hard part was getting the first airplane off the ground. From there... space shuttles in very little time.
As an outsider - Canadian - I see all of the things you describe. I think your theory is very likely right. Obama wasn't a twisted politician when he started. He had an agenda that was mostly in the favor of the average Joe. The problem I have with professional politics is that I realize you have to compromise to get anything done. If you want Bill A to be passed, you need the support of a lot of other people, and you may need to support Bill B to get the job done, though you don't like it.
It's selling your soul, bit by bit. In the end, some of the fights you were rallying for will cost you - and potentially the nation - more than you're willing to pay. The President isn't the Dictator-in-Chief. He's got rules to live by and the realities are that the office doesn't allow some of the sweeping changes Obama wanted... not alone.
So yeah, broken, depressed, dejected, and he probably views himself as a failure.
It's sad, really, because the nature of politics isn't his fault but his failures will be labeled as his.
"Scientists Accidentally Grow Full Head of Hair On Bald Man"
To be fair, the real article title was too long...
Scientists Accidentally Grow Full Head of Hair On Man Who Was Bald For None of The Reasons That Would Make This Discovery Interesting To A Reasonable Number of People
England != UK. This is the Dept of Education for England not Scotland, or Wales, or Northern Ireland - all of which are UK yet, strangely, they are not England.
Could you maybe make it easier on the world somehow? Maybe by going to war (again)?
I'd offer these as potential names that various factions could use:
The Kilt-Wearing Portion of the Formerly United Kingdom
Island Nation That Is Better Than Nearby Island Nation
Place That Didn't Invent Vodka Despite Plethora Of Potatoes
The Temporarily United Two Islands Which Hate Each Other But Hate That Other Island More
Why Do All Dwarves Have To Use Our Accents
We've Got Doctor Who
Yeah But Karen Gillen Is From Here
Where can I get content worth watching on that display?
Start, Programs, Microsoft Office, Excel.
Alternatively, My Pictures, then some random folder that has anything more than 2 megapixel images in it.
Or some random CAD program. Or page-layout package.
My point, simply, is that you can actually make your own content by using this monitor as a monitor. Don't worry about if it makes a very good TV... it has other, more monitor-y uses.
You have to expect that in a country where manual labor is cheap. In other countries, it makes more economic sense to automate or otherwise fix inefficiencies in the manufacturing process.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to highlight that there is a second side to your coin. In other countries, it makes more economic sense to automate the manufacturing process so a larger percentage of the profit is converted to profit for those employees that remain, while those who would have done the inefficient manual assembly become unemployment statistics.
Somewhere in between your statement and mine likely lies an ideal.
When you take off your clothes in front of a camera you should be responsible enough to understand the consequences, just like with literally every other bad decision you can make. Love is not an excuse to be retarded.
If you want to include the word "should", then apply it where it belongs. When you take your clothes off in front of a camera, there should not be consequences beyond your partner being aroused. That the woman in the article has to worry about her "reputation" is what is wrong. Personally the only way her having taken nude pictures impacts my view of her is that I now know she's a fun-loving person comfortable being attractive and sexual. She's not ashamed or repressed or otherwise convinced that the animal she is is somehow a bad thing.
There shouldn't be a big deal over being seen naked.
I get it that we're not there societally yet. I get it that because we're not there, there are consequences. But if we're going to talk about "should", let's put it where it belongs; we all should be comfortable in our natural state. That someone posts a picture of the shape of your butt shouldn't matter any more than someone posting a sound sample of your voice or a molding of your elbow.
American Date Format
Sorry, but as a non-American I have to admit I find that date format the most comfortable. Things are likely different globally, but here people tend to say "May 10th, 2014" much more often than "the 10th of May, 2014". Adding two bonus words so you can satisfy some "most granular to least granular" fetish doesn't fit.
For instance, the catastrophe that happened in the US over a decade ago is called "September 11th", not "the 11th of September".
Frankly I'd be okay with a compromise... 10(5)14 is May 10th, 2014 or the 10th of May, 2014. But as long as everyone insists on using commas, DMY will never have my vote.
Was it even ever popular?
I agree. This is a moment where marketing-speak masks the truth. The word they're using - demand - isn't appropriate. There was never and demand for Blu-Ray. What did exist to some degree was willingness to buy. These are not the same thing.
Demand stems from a need to strong desire. "If only someone would make a platter with higher resolution and more intrusive DRM, I'd give my left nut." That's demand. On the other hand, "I heard about this new gizmo with 1080p and intrusive DRM, and it turns out I've got money burning a hole in my pocket so I'm going to go get me one!" That's willingness-to-buy.
Turns out that to a certain degree other products are what there is demand for. Things like streaming video. Now that the products that are in demand actually exist, it turns out willingness-to-buy BluRay is shrinking.