jordan

I'm really unsure whether we could program something more inteligent than ourselves. The main reason is that I don't see exactly how much more we have to learn. Who knows, we could be very far off on everything, but that seems unlikely. More likely, we know most of the stuff that AI could ever teach intself. What's left (for example, what happen in a black hole?) would be pretty innacessable to both sides. I think we could very well create AI capable of learning what we know in a much shorter time frame. It's taken us thousands of years to get to where we are. I think we could program something to do it much quicker. I hope that makes sense.

And until we actualy put something else that's better up in space, it's the best we've got. There's no point in scrapping it altogether until a suitable replacement is ready.

Top private schools are starting to push $50,000 per year if I'm not mistaken. (Not including food, books etc.)

card= deck speck

They tend to be, yes. But generalizations are usualy bad. (Can all generazations be bad?)

Superliminal Advertising: "Hey You! Join The Navy!" "Okay" Great refrence Sayo.

A bit of both. As we all know, the words we chose are very important when making a speach. Often, for the sake of a fluid speach, I will substitute a word that works for the one that I can't think of. Just as I'm about to say it, though, a better word comes to me and then they come out as one jibberish-style word. So towards the begining of the speach I just freeze up and take a while to get through the speach. By the end, I'm making up words but am more comfortable in front of everyone. I can't seem to win.

Good point. But can't they be the same?

I betting it's based on one of two things: 1) Showing off knowledge of a lesser-known scientist and his works or 2) Picking the scientist who has made the greatest advances in the field that you find the most interesting.

And if I do the same when I speak, I must have a "seriously flawed brain->mouth process"?

Don't worry. I don't take offense to anything. I thought it was rather funny that the two threads both started talking about two different Jordan's and figured someone would get confused. I did myself when you first mentioned it.

Ok. You misunderstimated me. I'm a horrible public speaker. HORRIBLE. At least here I have time to think out what I'm going to say but when I'm in front of people (even if it's a prepared speach) I freeze. Bush seems to do the same. I wanted to know why that means he's dumb or can't run the country. You gave me a good answer, as I quoted. Like I said, "That was what I was looking for".

Thank you. That was what I was looking for.

So you are convinced from the way he speaks that you are more inteligent the he is.

Perhaps if there was some kind of time limit on it, then maybe. But anyone with enough time (almost anyone, that is) can work through it.

Some people are naturaly better at public speaking. It really has little to do with how well you and you cabinet can make decisions.

That one's good. Yet it still amazes me how people are more interested in looking for mistakes in what Bush says than trying to see the point that he intended to make. Seems rather immature.

Awesome. Nice proof Bloodhound. I hope I can come up with stuff like that someday.

I'm going with werewolves, but I'm interested blike: What kind of arguements did each side come up with?

So the question is along the lines of: If I'm in a Faraday's Cage and walk over and touch the side, will I get shocked?

Why not just return it and get one with all the parts?

Wow. I've never seen that table at the bottom before. It's really neat that it works like that.

Where did you learn about it?