I will be there.
cabalamat
Karma: 174
If it’s OK for the religious to discriminate against people, it ought also to be OK for people to discriminate against the religious.
The kid in Detroit has no possible way of knowing how much of what they see is genetic versus environmental
Surely they could very easily observe that people with dark skin typically have parents with dark skin.
A topical real-life example of this is the DDoS attacks that Anonymous are making against various companies that pursue/sue people for alleged illegal file sharing.
I make no comment on the morality of this, but it seems to be effective in practise, at least some of the time, for example it may lead to the demise of the law firm ACS:law.
Yet you SIAI S^ invite these proponents of global suicide by AI, K-type S^, to your conferences and give them standing ovations.
This seems to me a good strategy for SIAI people to persuade K-type people to join them.
Bush did not kill 10 billion current people (at $1,000 per life) and he massively increased health-oriented foreign aid to Africa
Bush wasn’t a candidate in the 2008 presidential election, so it itself it’s irrelevant what he did or didn’t do. (Of course, you could make the meta argument that a Republican president is likely to behave similarly to another Republican president).
What’s so wrong with an open-source program to help people become “Less Awkward”?
Learning new stuff often involves making mistakes until one gets it right. I imagine that if this community was created, many posts would be of the form “I did X recently and it went wrong; what could I have done better?”
Making mistakes in social situations is something that many find embarrassing, so they might want any such field reports not to become public knowledge. Hence, confidentiality may be necessary for people to talk openly.
Remember, the point of evolution is not to survive for as long as possible, it is to f**k as much as possible (for a male).
No, and it’s not even to have as many offspring as possible. It’s to have as many copies of his genes in future members of the species.
Consider to male proto-humans, Adam and Bob. Adam has sex with his sister, they have 6 children, but all die without reproducing.
Bob never has sex, but is a good uncle to his brothers’ and sisters’ kids, 4 more of which survive to reproduce than would have done without his interventions.
Which one was more effective at passing on his genes?
“Everyone’s special, Dash.” Dash: “Which is another way of saying no one is.”
Exactly. A person can only be high status by being higher-status than someone else; so one person’s high status must lead to another person’s low status. So status must be zero-sum.
I see no evidence that the customers featured in Not Always Right are otherwise bright and competent.
Neanderthals were, in all likelihood, smarter than Homo sapiens
We’re here and they’re not, which suggests to me they weren’t smarter than us.
If we follow straight revealed preference, we have to conclude that people have huge discount rates on distance or time, or to put it more straightforwardly, they are simply indifferent about what happens in nearly all of the universe.
Maybe they just think that they can’t affect what happens very much.
The probability is 1⁄5 (as independently calculated by me). I’ve no idea if argument 2 is correct, because I don’t understand it. My reasoning:
There are 6 combinations of 2 cards: AsAh, As2c, As2d, Ah2c, Ah2d, 2c2d.
Of these, only the first 3 (AsAh, As2c, As2d) could I have answered yes to both questions (assuming I’m not lying, wihch is outside the context).
But if I have AsAh, only 1⁄2 the time would I have answered yes to the second question. So AsAh needs 1⁄2 the weight of the other 2 possibilities.
So the probability is (1/2)/(2+1/2) = 1⁄5.
I think it’s more likely people will say “too vague a prediction”.
Moore’s Law exists not because there’s some magic about semiconductors, but because the market is sized and structured such that you need to sell people a new system every 2 years, and you need to double performance to get people to buy a new system.
I disagree.
I am typing this on a machine I bought 6 years ago. Its CPU speed is still competitive with current hardware. This lack of speedup is not because processor manufacturers chaven’t been trying to make processors faster; they have. The reason for the lack of speedup is that it is hard to do. The problem is more to do with the nature of physical reality than the structure and economics of the computer industry.
Consider cars. They do not halve in price every two years. Why not? Because they are designed to move people around, and people are roughly the same size they have always been. But computers move bits around, and bits can be made very small (both in terms of the size of circuitry and the power dissipated); this is the fundamental reason why the computer/communications industry has been able to halve prices / double capabilities every year or two for the last half century.
My second prediction is that the largest area of impact from technological change over the next decade will come from increasing communications bandwidth.
And distributed to more people. >60% of people will have at least 1 Mb/s internet access by 2020 (75%).
Aren’t these more likely to be done by libraries than languages?
I’d think it likely that it will be some XML variant.
I hope not. Something like JSON is far less verbose.
China is the 2nd biggest economy in 2020 (99%). Note I’m counting the EU as lots of countries, not as one big economy. Counting the EU together, China will be the 3rd biggest.
Pirate Parties will have been in government for a time in at least one country by 2020 (90%)
Pirate Parties will win >=10 seats in the European parliament in 2014 (75%), and <=30 seats (75%).
The Conservatives will win a majority the next UK general election (60%), there will be no overal majority (37%), or any other outcome (3%).
A US state will secede (30%).
I don’t see that happening—which one or ones do you think are most likely to leave?
Scotland may well leave the UK (10%), or the UK leave the EU (15%).
From what you’ve said earlier you apparently believe that the USSR was a client state of the USA.
So I can only conclude that you believe either (1) that Israel is a client state of Egypt or (2) that Egypt is a client state of Israel. I regard either of these two interpretations as bizarre, but no more bizarre than thnings you’ve said on this thread.
Frankly I at a loss to understand you.