Nicky

It's not simple. It's fairly complex. You made it simple by ignoring everything that disproves your simplistic, ignorant theory. Freitas dismantled the whole thing in a sentence. You should read that sentence, instead of going on about "dividing sum of file sizes by time elapsed".

No, what would've helped voters make better decisions was if both parties private mail was released at the same time. Including Trump Jr.'s correspondence with WikiLeaks. (all the stuff described in this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-secret-correspondence-between-donald-trump-jr-and-wikileaks/545738/) Tax records too, while we're on the subject. Then voters would've had the information needed to decide which of the two bad choices is worse: the Hillary camp colluding with each other to handicap Sanders, or the Trump camp, colluding with Wikileaks and Russia, to handicap Clinton. Having the Russian government decide which dirty secrets to release and which not to doesn't help American voters make good decisions. It's an absurd suggestion.

It's telling that you cut off that Nathaniel Freitas quote right before he said the exact opposite: that metadata doesn't exclude the Russians, far from it. From Wikipedia: The Guardian Project founder Nathaniel Freitas independently reviewed Lawrence's article on behalf of The Nation, concluding that while "the work of the Forensicator is detailed and accurate," it did not prove the conclusions VIPS and Lawrence derived from it. Freitas stated that the high throughput suggested by the relevant metadata could have been achieved by a hacker under several different scenarios, including through the use of a remote access trojan, and that the leak hypothesis also requires "the target server ... to be physically on site in the building": "If the files were stored remotely 'in the cloud,' then the same criticism of 'it is not possible to get those speeds' would come into play." In sum: "At this point, given the limited available data, certainty about only a very small number of things can be achieved." So the only guy with credentials and a history of cyber security, in this whole thing, is telling you that your conclusions are wrong. Why are you still going with this? Why would you post an obscure blog even the one professional who bothered to acknowledge it said was wrong?

That's a series of deliberately unintelligible blog posts disguised as technical jargon. There is absolutely no meaning in that blog. I'm a computer programmer, with an interest in cyber security. I'm telling you: none of those sentences mean anything. It's more nonsensical than the "physics" in Loose Change.

So, just to clarify: your position is that the DNC hack never happened? This wikipedia article is about something that never happened https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak ?

Yes, of course. Western countries are democracies. Ordinary citizens decide who runs our governments. We should vote for leaders who recognize basic facts about Vladimir Putin, such as: 1. He is a murderer, behind a series of assassinations and assassination attempts both at home and in countries around the world (including Britain, which shows how brazen he is). 2. He is fueling the Ukrainian civil war. 3. His intelligence services hacked the DNC, and released compromising information to Wikileaks in order to prevent a Clinton victory. This was an unprecedentedly hostile act. While espionage, including hacking, is par for the course between competing world powers, none of them have dumped the information they obtained through espionage onto the web, to influence elections, before. As such, this is a new level of hostility, which warrants an equally hostile response. 4. The DNC hack is part of a media and intelligence campaign aimed at destabilizing western countries. It is Russian propagandists (behind outlets like Russia Today) and intelligence services working together to sow confusion and poison western politics. In other words, we need to elect leaders who recognize Vladimir Putin as the enemy, treat him and his government as such, and retaliate proportionally for every single act of aggression or attempt to interfere. And, of course, we need to speak up about these basic facts, whenever someone is willing to gloss over them and write them off as "the leftist media trying to justify losing the election". Not saying they're not doing that, by the way. But what the leftist media is doing doesn't change what the facts are.

Politics and government doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's a consequence of the culture of a nation. So, what we need to ask ourselves, what would a culture that produces a capitalist government look like? For instance, with the initiation of force no longer an option, would people (especially the leaders of corporations) feel the need to impose their beliefs on others through economic means? Or would they be more accepting of differing opinions? Would a business owner be more or less likely to employ someone who doesn't believe in what the government is doing, and therefor refuses to fund it? On a more fundamental level, would the employer-employee relationship be regarded more as a contract with a scope limited to a specific kind of cooperation (towards the goal of producing a specific value), than it is today? Or would it be viewed even more as this family like relationship that imposes all sorts of responsibilities on the two sides, beyond just the explicitly stated business transaction?

Difference is, you don't need to build a gulch, to opt out of Venezuela's economic system. You just need to leave the country. Over 2.1 million people left already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_diaspora And, unlike with Mexico and some Central and South American countries (where it's the poor emigrating to the US, seeking menial jobs), this is the upper and middle class, leaving and settling in pretty much every country in the world, outside maybe Africa and some of the bad parts of Asia. That's actually one of the reasons why the crash is happening so quickly, compared to other communist states. These idiots forgot to build a giant wall, guarded by men with guns and attack dogs. So all the productive people just packed their bags and took a plane out of there. P.S. the third stage of the migration is actually whoever is left...lower middle class and the poor, crossing the border into Colombia (some staying, some making their way to the US through smuggling routes).

Happiness can be a trap. Happy people often assume that the world stands still, and that, as long as they are able to lock themselves into their current circumstances, that guarantees them an entire lifetime of happiness.But, instead, what happens is that they build themselves a happy little cage, and when it turns unhappy (because people change, what makes them happy today won't necessarily make them happy ten or twenty years from now), they're not able to break out of it. It's such a common pattern, with so many people, both professionally and personally...whether it's getting stuck in a job or in a relationship they stopped putting effort into. You can't be content with what you have: you have to keep improving it, and adjusting your goals, or it will sour, because, again: the world doesn't stand still, it's in constant motion. You have to move with it. That's what this attitude will accomplish, for this guy. When you put a cap on your productivity, you put a cap on your entire life. You deprive yourself of the means to shape your life in a way that keeps you happy, as you change over time. You can't live a happy life without ambition. Just because you've achieved something that makes you happy now, doesn't mean you can stop dreaming, and working hard to achieve your new dreams. If you stop trying to progress because you're happy, it's not gonna last.

There's no dichotomy between an easy job and a productive one. Quite the opposite: the more productive you are, the more concerned your employer is with making you comfortable and keeping you on a convenient schedule. Which means there's also no dichotomy between making your career a priority, and living the kind of life you wish to live. On the contrary, the sooner you realize that the reason for your comfortable, convenient life style is that you are productive at work, the sooner you are able to make objective choices that keep you in full control of the way you live your life.

Really? So why do women who use contraceptives wear them? Or women who can't have children at all? Seriously? That's what women want? Someone who thinks they're good looking?

So if a biological male wears it, they are being feminine?

Is wearing a dress, high heels and lipstick a masculine or feminine trait?

When someone doesn't laugh at your joke, there are at least two possible explanations.

Anything "might be said". I think you just proved it.

You're both wrong. Age is deep fried tofu: https://www.justonecookbook.com/inari-age/

So you went from "here's a widely respected software engineer who says his robots are conscious and capable of emotion" to "here's a guy with an arts degree who put the word 'scientist' in his CV and thinks that in the future somebody will create artificial intelligence". You really didn't need to dig this much for that. If you had just asked, I could've told you that EVERYBODY in the field thinks that we will eventually have true artificial intelligence. This doesn't need proving. What needs proving is the notion that scientists are claiming it already exists. That's the fib this whole anti-science dissertation is built on.

Tense consistency: a writer's best friend. https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/tenseconsistency.htm We don't have feelings without consciousness. We don't have artificial consciousness, we don't have machines that feel, we don't have true artificial intelligence. No one in the field is claiming otherwise. Please take note of the tense I'm using. Please use the same tense consistently, if you wish to have a factual conversation.

He's a software engineer? Where did he get his degree in software engineering? Where did he work as a software engineer? What is a piece of software he wrote? Where does he even claim to be a software engineer? AGAIN: David Hanson is not a software engineer, let alone an computer scientist specializing in AI. He is a DESIGNER. And no, he doesn't design software. He designs props. Really cool ones, but props. Like the ones in your video. And, by the way, he doesn't claim that they're anything but props. (doesn't use that word, but he's not trying to deceive anybody into thinking they are more than they are). Here's a quote from an interview with David Hanson: So I don't know how much clearer I can make these three basic facts: 1. David Hanson is not a computer scientist or an expert in AI 2. David Hanson does not claim to be a computer scientist or an expert in AI 3. David Hanson does not claim that his creations are conscious or intelligent. On the contrary, as you can read in the quote above, he openly admits that they are not. He openly admits that the whole thing is staged, and it is art rather than a scientific presentation.

When you say "these scientists", who are you referring to? There is only one person in your video. And he's not a computer scientist. He used to be a set designer for Disney (for the division that builds all those great theme parks across the world), and now he has his own company doing the same kinds of things. And he's very good at it, obviously. Those are impressive puppets (for lack of a better term). But it's art (with some engineering behind it, like most performance art), not science. It has nothing to do with the field of Artificial Intelligence.

To my knowledge, no one in the field has labeled a computer "conscious" or "intelligent" yet. I'm also unaware of many serious AI engineers claiming that their creations "perceive" things. The term I usually hear used is "gather input". Where did you see those terms used, outside of sci-fi movies? ------------------------------------------------------------------ To switch gears, your Binswanger quotes: What? Information is not a physical phenomenon? So how do humans communicate? Telepathically? Is that how this paragraph came to my attention? Through the supernatural realm? EVERYTHING's a physical phenomenon. How can a rational person say it's not? Besides, the human brain uses electricity to function, too. Only thing I sort of agree with in this is that "information does not exist for the computer". Sure, computers don't really grasp that abstraction. Yet. But, then again, no one's claiming they do. That's not true for a couple of reasons: 1. Humans are not the only animals with the ability to process information. Animals wouldn't be able to feed themselves, if they couldn't figure out where the food is (pretty sure "where the food is" is a piece of information). 2. There are robots built to gather and process information, and act accordingly, independently of any human control. They're not very common (because the ones that have partial human control are more capable, for now), but they exist.

I've been into Johnny Cash' American Recordings, the last few weeks. Especially "Help Me", off his final album. It's a very religious collection of songs, this one especially...but just so ridiculously, brilliantly touching, from a man mourning his soulmate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv4i4t2hj2I It's one of his many Kris Kristofferson covers. I think Kris wrote most of his truly great songs. But John made them eternal...especially this song would've been totally forgotten.

I don't think Objectivism is about focused attention. It's about a mind that is focused on reality, certainly, but that doesn't mean you have to always carefully consider the specific aspects of reality you focus on. Honestly, always consciously willing your attention has its drawbacks. You can miss out on a lot you might gain by letting it wonder. Obviously, when you're trying to get something done, you want to eliminate distractions, and focus on that specific, pre-planned thing...even if it's just watching a movie, rather than work related. But, a lot of the time, it might be good to not plan out what you pay attention to, and just focus on experiencing the world around you, whatever it may be, and let your subconscious curiosity take your attention, your interactions with others, and even your physical location, in whatever direction it happens to take them. Doesn't mean volition isn't at all times tied to attention. If you are mindful of your values, that will impact what you find interesting, and as a result what you end up paying attention to, even if you aren't consciously directing it.

Meh. It "looks" to Nazis the way 24 "looked" to terrorists. A movie that actually looks at why the ideology attracts young followers is American History X. I do think Shot Caller was a good movie though. Enjoyed the acting and the film making, a lot. But I didn't find the message insightful. It was extremely unrealistic, as well.

You don't have to. Words come with definitions. It's kind of a package deal: Rudeness is a display of disrespect by not complying with the social norms or etiquette of a group or culture. These norms have been established as the essential boundaries of normally accepted behaviour. Rudeness has nothing to do with being abusive towards a person. There's a great movie quote by Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lecter, to his tied up, disfigured victim: " Now you're being rude, and I hate rude people." I think it really helps illuminate what the word means: killing and eating people alive isn't rude...the victim using bad words, as it's happening, is. So it's not so much a question of "is there an excuse to be rude?", as it is "is there a need for an excuse to be rude?". Is being rude a bad thing? Or should rudeness be your default setting, and restraint/polite behavior the setting you need a special reason for? Personally, I think it's the latter: if you're looking to fit in with a group, especially in a very serious professional setting, you should probably follow etiquette. For the most part. On the other hand, if you're looking to challenge, surprise, amuse, intrigue, etc. a person or a group of people...breaking with social norms is not a bad way to do that. It's why most comedians say shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits a lot (hm... light bulb just went on: maybe I should highlight these...bet more people will read my post...which in turn will make my point...clicks on edit...how do you make something red? I don't think I ever used this feature before ). It's probably also why a certain politician (who already has way too many threads about him, so let's not get into it here too) is so rude, though of course he's doing it in what should be that serious professional setting I mentioned earlier. P.S. Even in a professional setting, you probably don't want to be 100% compliant with etiquette. You ARE still allowed to be a non-conformist, you just have to be more cognizant of the effect it has on others, because, unlike in your private life or at a comedy show, they're not hanging out with you by choice. If you make them uncomfortable, they can't just leave. That's when it goes from being rude and crosses into being abusive. Rudeness is not just for professional comedians, either. I would hate to have friends who are always polite. It's boring and dishonest. And I find that most people feel the same way. They might not want to have to deal with "too much personality" from co-workers or clients they can't shut out if it's not to their taste, but outside the workplace, compliance with most etiquette becomes and obstacle to efficient communication. And it's not by accident, either: most etiquette is designed to stop people from easily finding sex partners. That's why so much of it is about regulating men's behavior "especially when ladies are present", and vice-versa. It also extends to family: I will teach my children to be polite, of course (in the presence of my own parents, for instance, because that's how I was raised, and why stir that hornet's nest...and, of course, at school), but I will not require them to be polite in my presence. Wanna be the cutest five year old ever? Go ahead and swear to your heart's delight. Fart too. Eat with your hands, and talk with your mouth full. Do all four at the same time.