Link to save on research: http://www.wuft.org/news/2014/...
There's is a genetic component to intelligence, but it's just a very insignificant one, at least as far as modern science can tell. Read this book to learn more: http://www.amazon.com/Intellig...
The main problem with genetic arguments is that environmental advantages swamp genetic advantages when it comes to human intelligence, however defined. And importantly, how you define intelligence is driven by culture, which unsurprisingly means that the advantaged people in a culture are measured as more intelligent.
I like the way Nisbett goes after this topic b/c he doesn't deny any impact of genetics for intelligence, but he does give strong research evidence that it's not a meaningful measurement, so not really worth worrying about.
As a greybeard who used to write dynamic gopher sites, I really like to write in Ruby/Sinatra now. It gives me access to lots of nice features (I can install activerecord when I need it) and I can build APIs super quickly and everything in between. And I can get down to the bottom of the network stack pretty easily when I want to. I do miss the Ruby/Rails built-in testing framework, but otherwise haven't looked back since switching from that environment.
I think the really interesting issue here is whether the programming should favor the occupants or the overall situation? And how to balance?
If you have the choice between running down a pedestrian or swerving to hit a concrete barrier at high speed, you might want to choose the pedestrian if your goal is to preserve the lives of the occupants who may die if you choose the retaining wall.
But all low speeds, you want to pick the retaining wall because the occupants wouldn't die - it would just damage the car.
Or in the OP example, picking the smaller car to crash into might increase survivability for the passenges of the autonomous car, but increase deaths for the smaller car being hit. Whereas hitting the larger car (more solidly built, more mass) might injure the occupants of the autonomous car more..
- Question 1: Fiat currency like US dollars don't limit the amount in circulation so as to manage inflation of the currency. Currencies in the past that don't do this are usually subject to runaway inflation or deflation at some point. Why won't bitcoin be subject to this economic condition? I understand that bitcoins are infinitely divisible so perhaps that is the way bitcoin inflation/deflation is handled?
- Question 2: I believe the bitcoin network processes it's transactions by incentivizing miners with new currency in exchange for processing the transactions (I think that's how it works). What happens when there are no more bitcoins for miners to mine? How will all the transactions be processed? What are the incentives to support the transaction network without new bitcoins as incentives?
I definitely appreciate any insights into the economic mechanics of the network along these lines!"
Link to Original Source
Going further OT here.. My understanding is that transactions into and out of some bitcoin exchanges can effectively wash out this "paper" trail? So if the criminal seller and buyer arrange to exchange bitcoins via certain exchanges (designed to wash/hide transaction histories), criminal seller hands over one set of bitcoins and criminal buyer walks way with different bitcoins altogether? Since there's no regulation to my knowledge of money laundering in bitcoin exchanges (yet) this isn't even an illegal business practice?
I disagree - godaddy should not rely on last 4 digits of CC for anything related to security. Paypal giving up the last 4 digits is way less of a problem than godaddy relying on them. The two systems interlocked of course is where this real misery occurred.
How much more expensive? I went to their website and they don't even print their price list anywhere I could see.
Yeah double plus. I just went an enabled two factor on my registrar account. Kind of obvious that having a weak auth there is a major security hole but I hadn't really been paying attention to it.
A treadmill just lets them manage power cables and what not, plus controlling photography etc. That thing is walking autonomously and unsupported, upright on two legs. And regarding the drunk over broken ground, it's almost exactly what a human would look like if they had a blindfold on doing the same task.
Plus 4 legged running: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chPanW0QWhA -- granted not autonomous yet.
Also, even if you have a 1 in 10,000 catastrophic launch failure rate, you will in very short order spray highly radioactive waste all over the upper atmosphere trying to get it to the sun.
Fossil fuels and nuclear don't have the "same issue" -- fossil fuels use emits massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere creating catastrophic future warming of the planet endangering the human species' survival as we know it. Nuclear fuel use produces some highly dangerous waste material that has to be stored or eliminated.
Which problem would you rather have society engineer solutions for? I'm voting for nuclear.
I'm not saying you don't know this already, but I am saying that your post gives the wrong impression.
Granted these are controlled experiments with prototypes, but autonomous, two legged walking by robots is not a "way off" - it's been done:
And regarding four legs - seems like BD among others seem well past the "barely" stage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE3fmFTtP9g
But I guess it's all in your definitions of way off and barely..
That is false. I live in California and there are people here, including some close to me, who have individual plans and who are keeping their existing plans. A LOT of individual policies in California were cancelled but it is wrong to say that ALL of them are. Plans issued and unchanged prior to a particular date specified in the law are allowed to be grandfathered.
Reducto ad absurdum against a straw man is not generally considered a valid way to win an argument.