OCinBuffalo

Apparently this Cordell guy is ethier a giant moron, or is still happily running his Gateway 2000 from 1997. Perhaps it was possible back then, now? No friggin way. Not with the architectures in place already, never mind the ones that will be designed and deployed in response to this idiocy. But really? I'm starting to wonder if this nonsense, that comes up every time a new Democrat is elected, is just a put-up job. They know there's no way...but it makes them look good to the far left idiots who supported their campaign = "I'm gonna...innovatively...tax more things!". It costs them nothing to say this, and nobody remembers it 3 months later. But the far left gets its "2 weeks after the election, it's already happening...Hooray!" idiot bone.

Hmmm. So either you are slow, or, you are after me. I go with the first one: 1. AI can learn anything it can percieve. 2. You can prevent AI from learning something by limiting/modifying it's ability to percieve. These two statements aren't contradictory. Moreover, you can put inherent, basic traits into any computer system that will cause it to process things a certain way. And, you can establish a hierarchy of rules, that it cannot break without shutting itself down. It's as simple as having publc functions and private ones, and the private ones cannot be overridden, so, even if it could override it's own methods, and re-program them, it wouldn't be able to mess with the private ones without causing a system error. Or in the case of the drone, either falling out of the sky, or, rebooting itself and thus preventing the "collusion" with the other drone. Of course, bugs happen, but that is why we test, and that is why we patch. We use this system to great effect in preventing moronic activity from one of the greatest single threats to society: client-side programmers. Or more likely, the half-technical manager who refuses to accept his/her limitations. Skynet has nothing on these people, in terms of the catastrophic damage they can cause. Who said anything about threatening? You know how you misread that email today? That was just me...testing the system.

Sheer laziness. But, given the content of the rest of your post, looks like I didn't need to, did I? Context of my assertion? I was trolling, moron. The context is whatever is necessary, in this case, whatever would make silly liberal douche carry his logic forward, so I could expose it. Fine. My point was that market value is market value, and that artificial F abouts with it only serve to shift things in unintended ways. Well, actually, that is my point now. I never really made that point, because I wanted the effect of calling for an end of the minimum wage. The reason I was calling for and end? It IS a political argument, and said liberal douche was making a political argument, rather than one based on any sort of rational/accepted macroeconomic tenet(s). Come on, you should know by now that fighting fire with fire is my way. Again, fine, but...what about the fact that so many other salaries and wages are determined using the minimum wage as a baseline, or as part of an equation? Or do you not know that? The effect reaches a much larger demographic than you've described, doesn't it? But on the flip: if you are right, and it doesn't matter, then why have it at all? Thus the completion of my trolling: the only reason you want a minimum wage, said liberal douche, is so that you can try to use it to get votes. Once again, it's not about the poor: it is about power. Again, the argument was political. I was repsonding to economics-free idiocy with...economics-based idiocy, but still: political. "Not exactly the same"... Babbling idiot. You give the concept of free association a bad name.

The "Blind Dolphin"? Sounds like a bar.

No. The drones don't have the necessary programming for that. Literally there'd be noplace for them to store the data necessary that would lead up to making a "decision" like that, never mind lacking the methods/functions to execute it. Code generaion is no new concept, but, the template for which code can be generated is the key. AI can learn all it wants to, but, you can always control what it learns. Consider: if we never exposed you to the alphabet, you'd have no idea what it was. I supposed you could extrapolate your own alphabet, but...it took humans years to do that. Morever, if we modified your eyes such that you couldn't perceive letters, then you could come up with as many alphabets as you might, but you wouldn't be able to see them.

Not if you don't deal with it in proper context. Or, in especially your case, if you know nothing about defense policy, strategic policy, tactics, operations, etc., and how those relate to our society as a whole. The simple fact is: I respect this guy's right to be bitter about dying, and to question the need for it. It truly is sad, and it is also a perfectly valid human response. However, ultimately I can't(not don't) care: soldiers die in war, period. As a society, we have to make choices, and one of those HAD to be: putting this guy in danger of dying. War is one scenario in government where we don't get to duck the consequences of our choices. There is no 'just run a deficit', 'just spend some more money', in war. People die, that's the end of it, and nothing "fixes" it. I can explain why we ALL can't care that poorer people die in war, in full context, if you'd like. But I will only do it if you promise to act like an adult.

This is such a BS argument. You should go interveiw cadets at West Point, and see how many of them came from a poor background, and had no alternatives. Also, you should go interview any of the Special Opertions people in any of the services...and ask the same question. Yes, there are a lot of Johnny Hayseed from bum!@#$, kansas, but your observation of his choices and the conclusion you draw....is tainted and therefore retarded. From Johnny's perspective, he could have spent the rest of his life as a farm hand, a cowboy, a hunting guide, a whole bunch of things that in Johnny's mind(but not in yours) are completely different jobs with wide variance on what has to be done each day...and been quite happy.... ....weren't you to the one arguing how rich people can't be happy, because money makes you sad, last week?.... ...but Johnny wanted to see the world, or at least more of it than bum!@#$. And God Forbid, Johnny is capable of abstract and deep thought as well, and as an American, realized he was willing take on the necessery duty so many suppsedly "more refined" individuals lack the conscience and introspection, never mind the balls, to accept. So, from Johnny's perspective, he had plenty of options and all the choice in the world, but he chose service to others. But you don't understand that, do you, because in your silly little mind, only peole like you are capable of choosing to serve others. You don't care to understand Johnny. No, you'd rather project your narrow views onto Johnny, and then conclude "well, Johnny had little choice but join the Army." And then conclude "That's not fair to Johnny to have such crappy choices in life". But your argument, both Johnny and I will tell you, is based on pure, 100% ignorance, then supported by projection, and concludes with a shameful amount of condescension....with an undercurrent of smug running throughout. Par for the course for your average (*^*&%^$^#liberal argument.

Every year there's always a contingent of posters who make this assertion, and, every year they never back it up with anything that even remotely resembles an argument. Therefore, every year I correct them, and ask: with whom are we supposed to trade down, and for what? You are implying that you are smarter than the Bills, so, let's hear it! Btw, the tired, old, and now idiotic argument that "Bill Belechick trades down and look at what he"....has led to the Pats having the worst drafts in the league, consistently, over the last 8 years. Do the research before you say no: now many drafted player still on their team? Especially on defense? Dude, there are entire drat classes that didn't make it past 2 years. The Bills may not be smart, but they are smarter, based on drafting for value, than Bill Belechik has been...by a lot.

Your sense of humor is your chief characteristic on this board.

Pretty sure that was Greg Gutfeld, and therefore, this: is for you! looooolololoooool lolol looool looool lol lol He does that all the time, purposely, so that twitter will blow up. While I was looking for that, I found this: which is equally hysterical.

Not gonna read the thread, top L words that immediately come to mind: Labia? (first thing I thought of) Lesbians? Lasciviousness? Lust? Laughs? Lectures? Ludicrous? (thread...I hope not, I haven't read it yet) Lilliputians? (now this is just getting weird, and so, I am done)

They were people that mattered only for a few days..or in some cases only 5 minutes of **** talking + the time it took to throw the punch. So yeah, since I don't devote any of my internal RAM to irrelevant people, I had to take a second, "go to disk", and count them up. Now, if only we could've gotten you to do the same when it came to carp....

This of course is the other side of the story that nobody likes to talk about, but is just as real. It's about, as you said: respect. The reason they would openly tell you stuff? They respected you. Your opinion mattered. You were worth them telling the truth. But, the only way they could have possibly respected you: they had to know you, didn't they? The trouble with the people in my stories? They didn't know the people they were talking about at all. Not even a little bit. And perhaps more interesting: Swear to God, I didn't see any race, in either case, until they brought it front and center into my perception. I had to hear the racism first, before I saw the race. To me: that's the polar opposite of being "racially uptight". I just don't care, because mostly for some reason it just doesn't occur to me. I have problems with other things. Example: I will fixate on the shape of a party girl's A, and make the decision to move in, long before I notice what race she is(or her boyfriend/husband/girlfriend--by far the scariest scenario). This can be problematic, but I make no apologies for it.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Bring Back the Duel! However, modify it for today. The offended can challenge the offender to anything they want, and the principal must first ajudicate whether an offense has been committed, then, organize the challenge, and ensure each person has a second. Example: A singing duel in front of the whole school would be not only hysterical, but a source of Great Justice on Youtube, especially if the offender can't sing. See? Technology is never the problem, using it poorly/without enough thought is the root cause. Duels could be in 1 v 1 basketball, swimming, math, anything. Think about it: if you are being bullied by the big fat kid, don't you want to make him swim and have to get pulled out of the pool...and have that posted on youtube? if you were a total nerd, and the bully is a total dunce, wouldn't you want his idiocy publicly exposed...youtube? if you really are that loser kid, who has no friends and no chance, why not challenge the bully to fashion modelling? Making them wear a dress is totally worth it, and what do you have to lose? If the bully persists, one duel is handed out for each offense. Wouldn't you want to make him wear a dress every week...jesus F'ing Christ YOUTUBE? if you are jboyst62 wouldn't you challenge the weak, scrawny ****-talker...to a weight lifting contest? How about a jumping contest? Need I say it again? See? All that is required is a little thought, and some wisdom on the part of the principal. Asking too much? If we are to believe that every kid has value, then why not give the bully an object lesson in that belief? Don't give me any crap about the self-esteem of the bully. If they committed the offense per the principal, then they deserve what they get, and lo and behold, they may find that they actually like swimming...which would give them the outlet they require and curtail their insecurity(the root cause of bullying), and thus, no more bullying. And, to complete the circle, the principal is the one that puts it on Youtube, and therefore, is also the one who takes it down, if the lesson has been learned. Personally, (heh, obviously), as the eternal new kid, fighting was the only option for me. However, after having gone through 14(I actually just counted them up...that was fun) wanna-be bullies, from K-college, I have found that it rarely required more than 1(one), well placed punch, to get the point across. So, I don't see the "big health risk" argument at all.

Character is simple to evalute, and if the lack of it effects the job, as it did with Clinton, then it's an easy one, right? Inversely, firing a high-character guy who just isn't as skilled as we need....is why the football board struggled with Chris Kelsay for years. I'll ask you: who would you rather have working at your law firm? A guy who bills at .8 utilization, but also tries to bang eveything he sees, including your wife/girlfriend, and has a powder problem, or, the guy who only bills .4 and doesn't really know how to score new business, but is no-drama?* There's little point in discussing character, or listening to the assassins of it, as the truth of it, and its real effect, will soon become self-evident anyway. I saw plenty of "character" officers in the Army, and F them. I took my boot knife to one of them once, because he "charactered" his way into getting us all "killed", twice. Too often "character" is used because the truth: "I'm not as good at the job as I should be, or really, I talk about characater because I don't want to talk about skill set" doesn't work out too well for the speaker. The trouble with this post is: leftist idiots will use it to justify having no character at all, and/or, justify declaring that character doesn't exist. Oh, and * my answer is: I don't know, I may need one, neither, or both of them, depending on what we are dealing with. Oh hell yes. I am not above all this btw, and I don't want to represent that I am. I did after all walk into my old Sabres/Bills bar, that is usually is a mix of black/white, and stupidly do a McKelvin impression. It wasn't...offensive...but it was awkward.

It's Not equal. As in: if we made a COLA adjustment to minimum wage, or, even if we doubled the COLA....that is NOT equal to moving the new "living" minimum wage up to $14-6/hr adjusted for local cost of living etc. Essentially, would you agree that moving it up $2 is not the same as moving it up $8-10? And, why the 2nd part ties into the first: once we begin the process of moving it up $2....what exactly will stop the demagogues from trying to move it up $4...$6...or the whole way to $14-6/hr? They've already proven that they cannot be trusted to debate: 1. Tax Reform 2. Entitlement Reform 3. Health care 4. Defense spending 5. Anything other than Gay Marriage in an honest and equitable fashion. Why should anyone entertain discussing the possibility of minimum wage increases with Obama or Senate Democrats, until they prove they can actually not play politics with it, for the very first time ever, and actually approach the issue in a genuine problem solving fashion? Aren't these the people who refuse to admit that we have a clear issue with babyboomers vs. medicare ....and I am supposed to think they will be responsible when it comes ot COLA adjustments? IF they can't even see the big problems properly, why should we think they will be able to do the small stuff right? OTOH, perhaps this is the way? Start with something small and train them on that first? Someday they might be able to act "like people". I just see your idea, however comprised, being turned into yet another nightmare, when Obama, once again, refuses to lead on it, and again, turns it over to Democrats in Congress who will, again, FUBAR it.

Dammit Doc! Bah...I had something nicely laid out for birdog to step in. Oh well. birdog if it's "about much more than drugs" then what exactly do you mean? My argument was clearly "this is about you idiots not getting the world we live in today". You responded to my widening the debate....by being specific about drugs. Now, you are saying it's about more than drugs? Which is it?

No birdog. This is not how it happens at all. You have no clue, because you've never been to the meeting. You think a CFO thinks like that? Nope. You think any of the Exec VPs of operations do? Nope. And the worst of all: Do you really think a marketing/PR VP is going to let this one go by? This one of their few chances to prove that they are worth the money we are paying them in a substantive and non-abstract way. No, no, and no, birdog. Milk WILL cost $9.00 thanks to your idiot plan, and if the PR people are worth the money, nothing bad ends up on any of these folk's door step. No. Instead, the "blame" for the $9.00 milk will land 100% on you and your idiot plan, even though technically you are only repsonsible for $7.80 of the blame. Wal-mart? You're using Wal-mart? I bet I could quote you the minutes of the Wal Mart exec suite's meeting regarding your idiot plan, I could do it blind, and be about 75-80% accurate, to include nailing the responses from each of the business disciplines represented. And these are the people who incessanlty babble about "new" ideas. Again, I ask: who are the conservatives here? Who are the people who keep demanding we do the same thing we did last year, and/or, more of the same thing we did last year? How is any of this "new"? How is any of this "progressive"? Where is the progress? F that, where are the results? What's it going to take for the clowns to realize that LBJ really was a moron, like they kept saying in 1965, and that there is no honor is protecting the legacy of a moron. What's it going to take for them to realize it's no longer 1965? We keep having to endure Dopey McKeynsian's lab experiment for no other reason than "someday....one of these days...it will work" , because proving the theory, rather than getting results, is what these clowns are about. Would you agree that talking about COLA adjustments/minimum wage increases is not equal to the "living wage" idiocy? Also, would you agree that if we created your "tiered" plan, liberal douchebaggery would find a way to FUBAR it, such that, even if your plan has merit, it's better not to do it, since this prevents the inevitable bastardization, and failure? I do. GG reigns in the bizarre around here just fine. However, speaking of bizarre...I was trolling here about the minimum wage a few years back, and interestingly, it was GG who telling me not to be an ideologue about it, and that I shouldn't be against it. He specifically said something along the lines of "you just can't let the politics go, can you". The fact that was trolling a liberal douche, and getting said liberal douche to make all kinds of hilarious claims, didn't register with him. Now, today, it appears he has changed his tune significantly. All goofing aside, under normal circumstances, isn't GG supposed to be arguing Magox's point, and vice versa?

If they can collude globally, then what exactly do you think will be solved by our Supremes, or an act of our Congress? I sell my patent to a foreign subsidiary, then THEY setlle with the generics, and you and your dopiness is now rendered irrelevant. Nice work Then, instead of the taxes on the profit being paid in this country, they get paid in another country, we lose out on funding your precious teachers...and firemen, don't forget the firemen , and what, exactly, have you accomplished? Sorry but this smacks of the same idiot premise that "Tax The Internet!/Charge Postage for Email!/Charge Sales Tax for Internet Purchases" is based on. Perhaps you should ask Elliot Spitzer how his 2 whole days of "Get the Internet" worked out? Globalization/Internet is here to stay, it has real world causes and effects. This argument is already over, and has been for quite some time. It's just that tools like you and Krugman don't want to admit it. Your tactics of bullying national goverments into stupid policies are irrelevant when we are talking international economics. He wants to talk about this country and that one's monetary policy, as if that has any bearing on a corporation who operates in 30 countries. Case in point: US corpation profits are doing well in every country but...this one. Why? Because they don't have a investment stifiling, uncertainty creating, capital risk in Obamacare. Corporations have no choice but to operate in multiple countries. Diversification is what you learn in Finance 215 class. Therefore, protecting yourself from the idiot decisions of one government or another, by operating in lots of countries, is just showing basic managerial competence. You might as well argue for a living wage in America, and nowhere else....oh...wait....you're the one that makes that idiot argument, based on the same idiot premise, aren't you?

Exactly. I am tired as hell of "but...but...but...Billy did this bad thing over here, so you can't punish me unless you punish Billy too." This all started with Bill Clinton. Clinton should have done the right thing and resigned. Democrats should have done the right thing and demanded he resign. Instead, they CHOSE to make it into a political argument, like children, instead of facing the moral consequences, like adults. Ever since, unless you can get video/audio evidence, both sides have chosen to make every issue political and ignore the moral implications. There is no shame, and nobody around to even create/hold the standard that defines shameful behavior. Asking someone "have you no shame, sir?" today, is a pointless exercise.

It's affectation. Nothing more. Principles, like "help your neighbor", "don't kill", etc. are in us all. Values, OTOH, are taught. Your cousin appears to be a "good person" because he is not a sociopath, and therefore his priniciples are intact. However, his learned values are F'ed. It's no different than: how can a guy save a kid from a shark, but get fired? The only reason he was on the beach in the first place was because he lied about needing medical leave. Sound principles, but, F'ed up "the government/my company owes me" values. Two similar points on this: 1. I had a run of 2 years where most of my projects were in the South, and, many here know of my prediliction towards drunken women-chasing. One Saturday afternoon I ended up at a college football tailgate, and as tailgates go, I sorta tripped and fell and ended up with this girl in my AO, and things were clearly going in the right direction. She was hot, and I don't mean beer google hot. I mean blazing, "I better not f'ing stutter" hot. And, she was sweet. I had a internal commentary going along the lines of "you lucky bastard, don't say anything stupid, dammit" and then, out of nowhere, the group's attention was drawn to these dudes a few cars away were playing football and having a good time. I say dudes, because in my mind that's what I saw: a bunch of cocky college kids drinking, cooking and talking sh_t. I saw basically: myself, only a few years prior. Seemingly out of nowhere she says: "Oh good lord, why the hell did we have to end up by the ni99ers? Y'all better make sure you lock your cars so they don't get tempted. Y'all know they can't help themselves." Or something to that effect. Everything started to change for me. I mean, I could still see "hot" and "sweet", but it wasn't the same. Running commentary "yeah, hot, but.....dammit". I had to tank it. It was idiotic and the client guys I was with couldn't believe it, and probably still don't, but still, I had to tank it. You all know: right is right for me, and that wasn't right. One guy said later: "So I guess that's what it's like being a yankee, huh?" What else? I answered "Yep". 2. Years later, I was in an elevator with 3 client guys, we stopped at a floor and picked up a black woman. I didn't even notice her in general, or her race, as I was thinking about my job and the meeting we were all headed towards at the top floor. She gets off, and one guys says: "Jesus, at which point do we say 'we've hired our quota'"? The one guy laughed, but, interestingly, the other guy said "What the hell? I've worked with her, and she knows the job. I don't want to hear that kind of talk around here. If for no other reason than it exposes us to a lawsuit, you moron". As the consultant in that group, my job is to STFU and say nothing. The rule is: We don't talk back to clients. But, it was great that the 3rd guy didn't allow the bad behavior to continue, and I told him so privately. That's the point: real racism has to get fixed by white guys/girls, in the elevator, when nobody else is looking. It's not going to get fixed by militant activists crying racist at everything they see. or by tools like Chris Matthews trying to gain political points by treating racism as a commodity to be traded.

If only we'd come to our senses and pass a "living wage" law...then businesses would flock here. Who doesn't want to be forced to ignore market value, and everything else they learned in business school/on the job, in favor flat out buffoonery? Maybe we should raise property taxes, so we can have better schools. That won't destroy the tax base even further, and cause raising rates, again, to be the only solution. Businesses will want to come to Buffalo/NYS and pay higher tax rates, so that they can get: the Buffalo school system. How about we hire more state employees we can never fire, this way they will always stay in Buffalo? That will kill off unemployment...and, since we've raised taxes for better schools, we'll just raise them again to pay for the government employees who will want to come here because of the schools. There's plenty of businesses in WNY who can afford it: look at Roswell Park and UB! I really don't get why you guys don't understand this stuff: it's so simple.

Oh, it's simple alright, I originally had a part 2 to that, but I figured we should start with the most basic thing. Part 2 includes fun exercises like: what happens when stores raise it to $9.00, instead of $7.60, and blames the Omnipotent Idiot? How do you stop them from doing that? Oh, that's right Mr. Nixon(another wannabe omnipotent, but merely an idiot): install price fixing as well. Or, what happens when you purposely introduce something that makes hiring the average(in every way) employee cost prohibitive? (Ahem, Obamacare?) Or, plese explain why you would purposely introduce a structural unemployment triggering plan, when globalization is already causing massive amounts of structural unemployment, with structural deficiencies being the most difficult/expensive thing to fix in a nation's labor force? In the real world, where I live, and the Omnipotent Idiot, does not, there is no shortage of work for people who automate business processes and in doing so, eliminate low/mid level jobs. EX: Take a look at IBM's balance sheet. Many clients and prospects are looking to kill off as many administrative/white collar jobs as they can before Obamacare hits. They aren't even being coy about it, and nobody, not even the Democrats, is blaming them. The regular, rational Dems are caught in a trap: if they B word about the layoffs, they have to accept blame for Obamacare. Better to say nothing. But, yeah, the far left Democrats are working wonders for the middle class.... They are doing more damage with Obamacare to the middle class, than the dreaded "downsizing" efforts of the 90s(which actually ended up contributing to the boom). They screamed about them incessantly, yet now they support this idiocy, which will do more damage, and cannot be repaired by entreprenuership/consulting, like downsizing was. Again: if you want something done right, put the far-left in charge of doing the opposite.

I wonder if he understands things like ratios? For example if milk costs $3.80 now, and dude makes $8.00 working at the store, he has to work 1/2hr to buy it. Under the Omnipotent Idiot Plan(OIP), Ominpotent Idiot(OI) raises dude's wage to $16.00, which fits the criterion re the poverty line, but then... OI doesn't realize that every store will raise its milk price to $7.60 to compensate for having to pay dude's increased wage. (How this simple cause/effect can elude OI's omnipotence? Did I mention he was also an idiot?) So now, the "more moral" solution = dude still has to work 1/2hr to buy milk. In fact, OI and his plan are a waste of time. 1/2 = 1/2. And the reason is: the market value of the work done by dude is: 1/2 of his hour = 1 gallon of milk. F'ing about with prices and wages doesn't change the ratio, nor does it change the market value of the work dude does. ...... Now, let's talk Google. Rather than hiring lots of Americans, or 5x as many Indians, Google hires hardly anybody. Google is the perfect example of why income '= is going to only get worse under Obamacare, or the OIP. In fact, Obamacare couldn't be more irrelevant to a company like Google, and what business doesn't want to run a model that makes the government irrelvant? Since their business model is to automate everything and literally live off software, they don't need to hire people. Since they are turning a great profit, they could self-insure their entire staff having cancer, without batting an eye. They don't need the OIP to make them pay more, they are already paying 30-40% higher than average, because they only want a very few, elite people. Thus, the incomes of the elite workers at Google go up even higher, and the non-elite must seek life elsewhere. This is the automated response to idiocy like OIP and Obamacare. It will produce even more income inequality, and literally destoy the middle class. This is already happening.

Thanks for playing? You think you're "winning" with that pathetic response? How dumb are you? Again, screw "the means". Where is your list of Democrats who have the WILL to enforce the laws in their cities as Guliani did in his? Where is your object lesson in increased gun control, and the results it obtained that are = to what Gualiani did in NYC? Newsflash: Chicago ALREADY has some extremely tough gun control laws...have they stopped the soaring murder rate? You're an unmitiaged moron if you think that curbing the NRA's lobbying power will decrease the murder rate in Chicago. The NRA is practically irrelevant to that problem. Simply doing exactly what Guliani did will have 50x the effect. Do you deny Guliani's success, or the methods he used to obtain it? What is your need to make this a political thing, and talk about lobbying, when positive, undeniable results are right in front of your nose? It's sheer idiocy to think that more laws will have any effect on people who break the law for a job. Or, that more laws will have any effect on some nutjob, who has decided that killing a bunch of people is the answer. You expect the irrational(Beavis, with intent to kill lots of people) to be persauded by the rational(you better not because we are going to send you to prison for an additional 10 years). The crazy/addict/sociopathic criminal has already decided that killing 5+ people is a good idea, and you think it's going to roll that back because of 10 more years in prison? That's the definition of stupidity.