Search results

They serve plenty of non-practical purposes (like enjoyment). Your position is that the state should use the threat of violence to prevent people, the vastVASTmajority of whom will never commit any crimes with them from owning them because of the potential threat of a tiny minority. That...

It's doubly impossible people don't think it should be done. That's the point of rational discussion that starts from ethical positions rather than this knuckle-dragging "THE RULES IS ALREADY THIS WAY AND YOU CAINT CHANGE IT YA FAYGUT" bullshit.

So what? The constitution is mutable. This is a conversation about what the law ought to be, not whatever it currently happens to be.

4 doesn't follow from 3, either. I'm not disputing that the delta in gun deaths is directly attributable to increased availability of guns. You can assume that I take your view of the statistics as a given. From that "is" explain where you derive your "ought."

Except the very first thing they did with the borg was have them capture Picard to make a unique borg that served as its face. Did you people even watch that show?

You've misunderstood me. I'm not asking you to substantiate 1 and 2. I'm asking you to link them to 4 (since 4 doesn't actually follow directly). So again, 1. The US has 10,000+ gun homicides a year. 2. Other modern civilized nations have in the range of 50-100 gun homicides in a year...

Stop. Try continuing that argument: 1. The US has 10,000+ gun homicides a year. 2. Other modern civilized nations have in the range of 50-100 gun homicides in a year. 3. ??? 4. Some subset of "Guns" should be banned from private ownership. If we're going to play the "my position is...

Oh that's because the people pushing those laws are a bunch of racists who want to discriminate against ethnic minorities that don't vote against their interests in the way that non-rich whites do by imposing ID requirements that amount to a poll-tax under the pretext of solving a problem that...

That I didn't think of this first fills me with GBLT.

Here's a hypothesis for the science thread: if Morgan Freeman had a British accent, he could actually get away with murder in the US.

lol Given the current state of the art, Kurzweil could easily be wrong on any timescale that might be relevant to talking about whether or not he got it right or wrong. better?

Sure but Siri is not what Kurzweil is talking about (or at least it isn't until his prediction falls through...his track record on admitting his mistakes isn't great).

I'm "predicting" that alackof progress in three generations is not inevitable.

My position is just that it isn'tinevitablethat genuinely intelligent computers will appear any time between now and whenever Kurzweil has been forgotten (or as close to that as can happen post-wikipedia), meaning that he's staking out a stronger position than Flunklesnarkin seemed to think he...

lol I give up.

Right. Hinton's main approach to deep learning is stacking restricted boltzmann machines and then training a final label layer (which imposes the semantics on the system).

Btw, I'm not positive but my guess is this is something along the lines of what was done:http://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~hinton/absps/rtrbm.pdf

That's not at all a contradiction of what I just said. Restricted Boltzmann Machines (or whatever variant Hinton is using) do NOT give insight into the semantics of the task they trained to perform (nor can they be reasonably considered to be "intelligent" in any meaningful sense, even within...

To be fair, none of the current machine learning techniques give us significant insights into the fundamental nature of generalized semantics. It's not at all an inevitability that we'll see genuinely intelligent computers within our lifetimes or even the lifetimes of our grandchildren.

I'm sorry that your father can't successfully defend your honor.

I will never care what you think.

Here's my nature: I don't care about you beyond the repugnance I feel at the stupid shit you think. The depths that I will sink to in order to piss you off are directly correlated to how annoying you are to me. That the diagnosis comes from a doctor gives you better standing, but really I...

Yeah assburgers is total bullshit. It's just a way for people that are socially retarded sock-sniffers over their slightly-above-average ability to do math (or whatever mundane capability they've latched onto as their sole source of human worth) to sniff their socks in public,

I love how close you can get to the relevant factors while still getting the picture totally wrong. Yeah cause it couldn't be any extrinsic factors associated with their race. It's the pervasive moral inferority of their culture. Jesus fucking christ. Right, they might come to associate with...

lol Different base values. What in the fuck are you talking about? Anyway, you've failed the test. Go take a basic statistics course and come back.

I tell you what, we'll play a game. Since you put the word in all caps, I'm going to go ahead and guess that you don't know what I'm talking about. If you can convince me that youdoknow what I'm talking about, I'll spend my precious time coming up with the cross-tabs for that ridiculous table...

You're a racist because you'll take any scrap of information that meets your racist confirmation bias. You're stupid because you'll fail to subject it to even the most basic analysis. You proved me right by being exactly as racist as I said you were.

That moron just put up a chart that's not normalized for ANY relevant factors. You think he's got any grasp of statistics whatsoever?

Well you are a racist, but there I was mad because Flank was insinuating that I was calling you a racist without good reason, but then you proved me right and him wrong.

SUCK MY DICK, FLANK.

What he means is clearly race (though of course now he'll probably deny it). This game will not work on me.

See guys. It's the black fellers with all their drinking and crack that are the problem.

There's a pretty fucking major difference between those two scenarios. That is tantamount to saying there shouldn't be private news. No. You get called a racist because you believe genuinely racist shit.

lol The germs in your mouth thrive on alcohol in the same sense that you thrive on being hit with napalm.

Which part?

It's a good thing you put in those scare quotes. Otherwise people might think there are genuinely poor people in America. You twat.

I'm still baffled. Here's what I said: An easy definition that avoids nukes is whether or not it can be used without interfering with someone else. Just from the radiation release alone nukes don't qualify. The context of that argument was what was reasonable for civilians to have...

wat

I think starship troopers was pretty much perfect, but then again I hate everything the author stood for so the satirical take on his work just makes me happy.