"I can write this in a slow, OO language using OPM (other people's modules) and it'll be quick to target, bug free, lightweight, and fast. Because, uh, faster hardware and, uh, derp" Also, "I don't need to learn C, I have (fill in the blank with the latest fad language that purports to save programmers from having to really learn to program)" and also "I can use the (fill in the blank with the latest agile / tricky / ultra-testable) technique to Make My Code Shine!"
Oh yeah, and this charmer: "I don't have to bugfix version-2 or older, it's perfectly reasonable to expect everyone to upgrade."
I remember a case where a woman claimed she was beaten in the back of a patrol car by the two responding officers. Too bad for her there was an in-car camera pointed to the back seat which clearly showed her yelling and screaming, telling the cops to stop beating her, and she was the only one in the scene the whole time.
The constructive contribution I have is to make everyone who uses medical services pay for them. Stop this nonsense of people going to the emergency room with the sniffles and saying, "I'm sick."
"No shit you're sick, so are 5% of the people in the city. It's flu season. That' will be $50."
The second part is to force the smokers, the obese, the alcoholics and drug users to change their ways. All of the above are lifestyle choices they have made. They want to smoke? No problem. It's their choice. But I shouldn't have my money confiscated to pay for their bad choices.
But neither will be done, will it? Because that would involve personal responsibility and we can't have that, can we? It's easier to make people pay, and pay, and pay some more rather than taking a hard look at the driving issues of rising health costs.
The uACA has nothing to do with health insurance and everything to do with giving free money to insurers.
A failed web site launch, failure to meet their initial sign-up goal, failure to meet their predicted sign-up goal, continual fudging of implementation dates for random portions of the ACA.
It's just like having Bush all over again.
Hopefully people have finally gotten the message and aren't handing over their money to private companies just because the government says you have to.
Not according to companies. If you listen to them, there isn't anyone who's qualified for their positions which is why they have a worker shortage.
Witness this article which claims employers are whining they can't find enough people to fill these ten positions which include the medical field.
By that logic, stop using your computer. Between the mining of elements used in its construction, the huge amount of water needed to produce the parts, and everything else that goes into making a computer, it's harming society.
Oh wait, it makes you happy using a computer? Well then, carry on, society be damned.
Eh. Better yet, build a nuclear rocket that doesn't release any radioactive material at all. After all, you only need the heat. Use a propellant that absorbs UV and flow it around a nuclear lightbulb, and you have a rocket many times as efficient as anything we can build today, even at the low end of its theoretical range. Anyhow, it should be usable in atmosphere...
Interesting stub. But the engine eventually will become so radioactive that you can't get near it. I'd still want to test this thing in space just in case. It could open up the nearer planets and asteroids to colonisation and exploitation...
A new plane doesn't make a new engine possible. A new engine makes a new plane possible.
It's great that there Elon Musk is pushing out gains in performance, reusability and most importantly cost in chemical engine design! Kudos to him (and his company).
Of course for the real exploration of the solar system to begin, we'll need nuclear (fusion!) or other such unrealized technologies. Still it's a good start!
It's an excellent start for high lift capacity. You really really REALLY don't want to use nuclear engines in a biosphere, you want to use them in space.
I got four letters for you:J-U-R-Y
I got some letters for you, too: Voir dire. This is the process wherein lawyers weed out all your peers in favor of compliant idiots. That's not what it's supposed to do, of course, but that's how it's used. It's then almost always followed by admonishment by the judge to the effect that the jury has to apply the law as written, with nothing at all about the jury's actual duty to evaluate the law -- in fact, if that's brought up, likely you'll have a mistrial.
If you go to court in the US, you can pretty much look forward to success in ratio with the money you spend on your lawyer, and how well your lawyer manages to pass that largesse along to the judge. And too bad if the judge thinks public opinion means more than your money.
Someone here doesn't keep up with philosophy.
A good deal of philosophy is mythology, trendy mythology, which is why I tend to ignore the signals coming from that direction. It's not even a soft science: it's not science at all. So yes, you're quite right, and thank you for noticing I'm not taking part in that mostly-bewildered sideshow.
There is nothing -- repeat, absolutely nothing -- to indicate, in any way, that there is anything going on in brains that isn't mundane physics. Further, not anywhere in the body, not anywhere in the world, not anywhere in the entire universe. The tendency of certain personality types to attribute the unknown to various imaginary basics without bothering with objective fact, measurable cause and effect, and the inconvenience of presenting a falsifiable proposal is what got us gods, elves, banshees, ghosts, chupacabras, and so forth.
Me, I'll wait to assert that force X is making something happen until someone demonstrates that there is a force X. In the interim, we already know the living brain is replete with electrical, chemical and physical activity (by which I mean the actual physical configuration is known to change over time... I'm not just talking about niceties like oxygen transport.) We don't know what it all does in any kind of holistic sense; that makes it far too early to be presuming the existence of further activity of another order. If, however, we look into all the known activities and find that they cannot account for the end result, that's the time to look further -- that, or if someone builds an X detector and demonstrates that X is, in fact, going on -- as it were. I must point out to you that no such thing has occurred.
In the interim, the way to bet is clearly that it's all mundane, in the sense that we already understand the underlying physics principles. Everything from Occam's Razor to basic statistics tells us the probable solution lies in the set of solutions we've determined describe everything else; for one, we know of nothing else, for another, there's no evidence whatsoever that points to something else. There's simply no path from here to Dualism. Chalmer's assertions are baseless at this point in time, as they were when made. There's simply no evidence for consciousness as "it's own thing"; it exists in the mundane world, odds are that it is of the mundane world -- just like everything else we've ever looked into.
c'mon. Every indication says your brain is you. Chemical reactions, electrical impulses, stored states, massive, active and dynamic connectivity. That's what "you" arise from. When your brain stops, you stop. Your head contains a most effective EM shield consisting of wet, conductive layers that are sufficient to prevent huge RF and EM fields from getting into your brain tissue. The tiny, minuscule events going on inside your head can't get out under any circumstance for the same reason, unless you (a) punch a hole in your skull or (b) scan it with instruments so sensitive you can hardly comprehend the idea, or (c), you effectuate your mind's activity in some manner by moving your body via the nerves that connect your muscles and other parts to the brain through the base of your skull. Your brain is not an interface. Your brain is the computer. Everything we know about physics points this way; nothing points the way you suggest. It's simply not the way to bet. What you're talking about has basis only in mythology at this point in time.
o we don't know what "thinking" is -- at all -- not even vaguely. Or consciousness.
o so we don't know how "hard" these things are
o and we don't know if we'll need new theories
o and we don't know if we'll need new engineering paradigms
o so Alan Winfield is simply hand-waving
o all we actually know is that we've not yet figured it out, or, if someone has, they're not talking about it
o at this point, the truth is that all bets are off and any road may potentially, eventually, lead to AI.
Just as a cautionary tale, recall (or look up) the paper written by Minsky on perceptrons (simple models of neurons and in groups, neural networks.) Regarded as authoritative at the time, his paper put forth the idea that perceptrons had very specific limits, and were pretty much a dead end. He was completely, totally, wrong in his conclusion. This was, essentially, because he failed to consider what they could do when layered. Which is a lot more than he laid out. His work set NN research back quite a bit because it was taken as authoritative, when it was actually short-sighted and misleading.
What we actually know about something is only clear once the dust settles and we --- wait for it --- actually know about it. Right now, we hardly know a thing. So when someone starts pontificating about dates and limits and what "doesn't work" or "does work", just laugh and tell 'em to come back when they've got actual results. This is highly distinct from statements like "I've got an idea I think may have potential", which are interesting and wholly appropriate at this juncture.
And thank you for missing the sarcasm in my post.
Because when you "share" music you've purchased, the person to whom you've "shared" returns the music to you, and doesn't keep a copy for themselves, right?
Except it's not stealing, is it? Nothing is being taken. The people are just using the image for their own purpose with the idea being the image is still attributed to Getty, the distributor, and the photographer, who doesn't get paid for the use of their work.
Obviously at some point the person would return the image since they're just borrowing it, not stealing it. That's what happens when someone "shares" their music with someone else, right? They let the other person borrow the music and when done, the person returns the music back to the person who bought the cd/album/mp3/whatever, not keeping a copy for themselves.