The thing I have a problem with is that the "let's burn moar oil" folk won't listen to anyone until there is no "scientist" or politician left who disagrees with the climate change predictions. No consensus my ass.
Secondly they won't even consider any prediction until the models will predict with perfect accuracy their local weather at least one year in advance. Anyone in their fucking right mind would realize that's not possible. Thus only way they'll agree is after the I-told-you-sos. It was an unusually cold night last week, let's burn some moar motherfucking oil.
Good old GWB, god bless him, left US out of Kyoto stating that it would hurt their economy. Well as it turned out they didn't need Kyoto to do that after all! I mean who knows, maybe investing all that excess money to proper research of sustainable energy and industry would have saved the world this economic fuck-up.
Nothing like a short lil rant to bump up the global temperature.
If we burned every possible gram a fossil fuel, would that not return Earth's conditions to what they were before the fossil fuels were formed in the first place? If that happened suddenly, it would be rather catastrophic, but not if it took place over many generations of humans.
Wtf? No! Are you serious?
For the longest time I've wanted to experiment with AI using the approach you stated. I've felt that the AI projects focused on finding a fixed set of "rules" to guide the AI are looking at it the wrong way.
My approach would basically consist of an AI that would: i) constantly attempt to learn new facts by trial and error (hypothesis, validation), ii) categorizing information into sets of objects (think Plato's metaphysics for example), iii) building knowledge of these objects by associating them into bits of meaning.
First step would be to build an AI engine that could categorize input, meditate on it, experiment with new ideas and validate them against its existing logic and knowledge. After that various input methods (senses) could be built: vision, hearing, etc. And why limit to "human senses"? How about infrared vision, recording vision, ultrasound hearing, etc. And of course the mighty internet.
The philosophy behind this would not to make a discussion bot that's waiting for one line of input and then produces a single line of output but rather an engine (a daemon that is) that is constantly churning away. The external link to the user would simply be one input for the AI. That's the basic idea in a nutshell anyway.
Where I live (Finland) 400mg is OTC and prescription is 600-100mg.
The girl could have complained a massive migraine and asked the school nurse (who participated in the strip tease) for two pills. She probably had received them. Would she then have had to strip?
This is one of the biggest cases of WTF I've ever heard of.
Eeeek, pervert!
Ouch, my eye.
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]