This is the question I've been asking every vociferous political activist I can find: What would your candidate have to either do or advocate to lose your support. It's a stumper for almost everyone. The truth is whether you are for Trump, Clinton, Johnson, or Stein, you are virtually guaranteed to have no idea where your line in the sand is. I find this both deeply disturbing and, I guess, unsurprising given how little we humans actually think about our opinions.

There's (almost) always an e-stop. But my the time you can reach it someone is probably already as injured as they were going to get. I've been working in industrial automation for more than 20 years and I have prevented an impending injury with an e-stop precisely once. Even then it was because I had specifically told that person not to be where they were and I was moving to the e-stop at the moment the machine ran away (because someone shorted out a motor controller feedback circuit). Even then in the time it took me to react and respond the machine moved almost 10 feet (straight at his face). Missed him by less than two inches (because he flinched).

E-stops have two purposes: 1) locking out the system while you will be in a dangerous interference location, and 2) releasing the machine so you can extract the mangled remains. In this case it appears to have been the latter. Fortunately it was his leg not his torso or head.

No, they want him to do what most businesses do: plan for only what you know you can already do. Also, focus only on short term profits...because if you can't explain how you'll make a profit it definitely isn't worth doing. Don't you know this is how innovation works?

Yes, your description is exactly the reason, but my point is that Facebook really has no room to complain about a lack of engagement when they've filled my feed with things I can't engage with. Give me a way to filter out the people who've declared they don't want me intruding on their echo chamber anyway.

Pshaw! Nothing is more important than telling someone you don't know that they are wrong, especially online.

In the last two years there's been a steady increase in the prevalence of what I call voyeur posts. Items I can see but I can't either like (emote?) or comment on. I don't really care why that is, I'm much more interested in filtering it from my social media feed. There's no way to do that. So, Facebook, if you would like to increase my ability to "interact and post more" make it so my news feed is filled with things that I can, you know, interact with.

*grumble*grumble*humperdinck-a-mumble*young*whippersnappers*grumble*off*my*lawn*

I'd guess it centers around the "devout young maidens with whom I celebrate in connubial bliss every day".

It's incredibly easy to remove or restrict a login account that has any kind of password. It is *universal* policy to do this when employees should no longer have access to specific accounts. Were I a judge I think I'd have to at least consider whether KTXL made a good faith effort to secure their system, and whether that lack of effort should mitigate the punishment handed down. When consent can clearly, easily, and unequivocably be retracted does the fact that said consent wasn't retracted imply consent? despite other factors?

As with so many things in the law, it falls back on the violator's intent to do harm, which was, in this case, clearly established. If he'd done the exact same thing with the intent to correct an error in their publication I doubt he'd be going to jail, and possibly he'd avoid the felony record.

May I recommend the Bachelorette Party Weenie Bites as a temporary work-around while you re-negotiate. :)

Coming from a lifetime of bad calls in every sporting league ever, I'd encourage everyone to realize that the call made on the field of play is the only call that matters. It's a game, but not only that, it's a game you agreed to play under the appointed judges. Don't like the calls? Change the agreement you play under. Until then quit your whining and play ball.

Well, there are *lots* of competing definitions of AI, so I guess you'd have to provide your definition before we can discuss.

One definition that doesn't agree with you: The ability of a computer or other machine to perform actions thought to require intelligence.

If you had asked someone in the 1970's whether driving a car (correctly) require intelligence, I'm betting they would have said yes. Thus, the self driving car is an artificial intelligence by that definition. From another angle, this is an expert system, which Computer Science has taught in Artificial Intelligence classes since well before this century.

I think you are talking about something now called AGI: Artificial General Intelligence. This program is definitely not AGI, by any definition.

I know of no such certification program in the USA. If one exists I'd love to know about it.

Are there any non-human religions? No? Well, then let's just go ahead a make that next shaky step up the inference chain: Humans, not just religious ones, are the root of all evil. Of course, being human is corralated to lots of other interesting features. So I'm just going to go with the one I think is most likely:

Self-awareness if the root of all evil.

Right. In my career I've been taught one language (Pascal) and been tossed face-first into 4 other languages: C/C++, C#, Lisp, and Python. Language learning happens in phases:
- I can learn the syntax, reserved words, flow control, and basic structure of a language in 3-4 days. At that point I'd be able to take a small block of simple code and figure out what it's doing. I could write very simple programs to do pretty pointless things.
- Given another week or so I could learn enough of the support libraries to have some exposure to basic things like file access, network APIs, thread and process creation, database access, etc to understand what more general code is supposed to be doing. So about two weeks in I could start contributing to real work by finding and patching certain types of bugs, adding simple feature extensions, or building useful test cases.
- Given another 2-4 weeks of work I might be knowledgeable enough to create moderately complex subsystems, debug most single factor bugs, or begin commenting on any architectural problems.
- I won't know enough to make architectural changes for another month or more.

In the end, I wouldn't trust myself to make big changes on less than three months familiarity with a language. With some projects I'd want that much time just on that project's codebase, *after* the three months getting familiar with the language. At that point I've probably learned enough to know what it is I don't yet understand.

All existence is subjective. I think therefore I reach. I don't really care about objectivity, because I'm not objective.

But, if I were to try, I guess I'd base it on the existence of self awareness. Science cannot exist without the self-aware mind to posit, observe, and reflect. For there to be a science or logic within which this argument can be judged valid or invalid there must, therefore exist that mind. Given that you find value in scientific objectivism, you by extension hold value in the self aware mind.

I doubt that's acceptable, as you'll probably call it circular, but, as I said initially...I'm not objective when it comes to my own existence.

I agree, in the long term, but it's not a one step process. You throw people an resources at the problem, expecting to lose some in your ignorance. But humans are explorers. We (well, some of us) have curiosity and drive to do novel things, so there will be people willing to be the first at great personal risk. Leaving the water was risk/reward, climbing that first tree was risk/reward, climbing out of the trees was risk/reward, sailing around the world was risk/reward, going to the moon was risk/reward. We've just got to realize that both sitting on our ass doing nothing and venturing to mars are also risk/reward choices.

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step." -Lao Tzu