Jeremy

100

Been there twice... really liked it the first time, underwhelmed by the second visit. It is expensive-ish considering the type of food, but the portions seemed fine.

If a tradesperson has done a bad job, then I don't see the problem with posting about the experience on here. Even if the tradesperson in question is a known forum member... it makes it all rather uncomfortable, but no less "wrong" than - for instance - the saga with the cat-flap guy. In fact I don't think anybody has even mentioned her real name (or company/trading name), so I really don't see why some of you seem so concerned.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I understood with AI that the objective with > recent systems has not been to define the > connectivity in advance, but to allow the AI to > define the decisions needed to reach those goals. > > Hence it's possible for complex systems to > flourish that are outside the capacity of humans > to interpret - effectively to outstrip our own > abilities. If we're talking about artificial neural nets... yes the equivalent of synaptic connectivity is developed over time as the system "learns", but the framework is very much human designed. Note, I am by no means saying the useful AI is not attainable (it already is), but it will always be a tool for us to use. The high-level decisions will always be in our hands.

Is this proposed transaction tax just EU-wide? I'm assuming Switzerland would not be involved...

SJ, that is a poor post. You just hand-picked a couple of economists who (could possibly be seen to) agree with one side of the argument. Besides, Stiglitz supports a world-wide financial transaction tax, which is very different from a Europe-wide tax. And as if the Taxpayers Alliance are the only ones against the tax?! Come on!! As for the "bankers will abandon us" argument... when it becomes more effective to do business somewhere else, it will happen (why on earth wouldn't it?)

Pinning a piece of paper to a small dog? The Micklewright bloke wouldn't approve.

Loads of work going on for Crossrail...

NIMBY is a ridiculous accusation... it's one of those situations where people absolutely should have a say with what happens in their neighbourhood.

I don't like the idea of people exploiting the system either, but how do we differentiate between the genuine unemployed and the pure lazy?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm pretty confident that a seasoned academic will > do a better job of running Italy than a bit of > bunga bunga, and Italians probably feel the same > way. I'm sure you're right there, pretty much every Italian person I've met seems to hate Berlusconi (and I mean hate).

I emailed Southern to ask for an explanation last week. I just received an email in reply, with absolutely no attempt to answer any of the questions I raised. The reply did say "If you need any additional information regarding this request, please answer to this email", so I did... only to get it bounced back to me, as [email protected] apparently does not exist. Which I thought was a good metaphor. Public transport in the UK is second rate.

Waits

Clearly the distribution is inaccurate at the higher end of the scale, but the median seems to be around the ?500 mark, which I think is about right.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some rump marinating in soy and fish sauce with > lime juice and sugar. I did something similar myself for a barbecue earlier this year... but with the addition of lemongrass and chilli in the marinade.

The basic building blocks of the brain - nodes comprised of synapses and neurons - would appear to be fairly simple. But the connectivity is massively complex. But this is all really beside the point. If a useful worker robot would work with "fixed instructions.. within controlled environments" - humans still need to determine the instructions and control/monitor the environment. Therefore, humans are still very much needed. A far cry from "machines producing all the wealth and humanity merely consuming it". Actually it would probably be fixed goals rather than fixed instructions... a distinguishing feature between AI and conventional software.

I don't mind making bold assertions, if they seem logical (at least to me)! For a brain to understand the brain, it would have to be more complex than the brain. And while algorithms can "learn" and "evolve", somebody has to develop the framework and define a problem domain. In short - we'll always need (and indeed want) humans to set the goals.

BrandNewGuy - I think the idea of out-of-towners using ED station is a red herring. I think it's mainly people who live locally, but not near a station.

HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People only need to manufacture and program one > self-replicating and self-maintaining machine, > ever. Yes, but I did state that this was "in a fairly extreme scenario"... the actual proliferation of self-replicating machines would be a "extremely extreme scenario"! > Software programmes are almost always capable of > exceeding the capacity of their authors? brains in > terms of memory, accuracy and computational speed. > We wouldn?t bother to write them otherwise. Speed/memory/etc... yes, of course. Complexity? Not even close. The human brain could never design anything as complex as the human brain. > In any event, machine learning could eliminate any > limitations imposed by the human brain. Machine learning... artificial neural networks, genetic programming... all well and good for computer science post grads. In the real world - we'll see. These things still operate within a framework designed by humans, so are therefore still limited by our own abilities. > Machines are rapidly acquiring more and more > human-like mechanical abilities, a trend that > continues to advance without any physical limits > in sight. Agree there, the physical human-like abilities will come along centuries before the "intelligence" (if the latter ever comes along at all). > The risk/reward ratio is so great; I doubt we > could resist exploiting such a technology. Developing something with the capacity to override it's own "off switch"... it will never happen! We've all seen the Terminator movies (at least 1 & 2).

Was only a light-hearted comment, DulwichFox - not to be taken as a serious request for service alteration! As you say, typical football supporters... some normal people, and a few dickheads. They all have to get to the ground somehow, I suppose.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I support Southwark's desire to build a community > and successful economy not dependent upon private > cars - it's building for the future. I've not read the whole thread (who has?) but surely the aim of this whole CPZ scheme is to make it easier for residents to park their cars. I don't see how it's related to reducing our dependency on private cars. Have I missed something? If they want to build for the future, they need to start thinking about providing us with a 21st century infrastructure - instead of the 19th century infrastructure which we're currently stuck with.

Of course, nobody is forcing Halal/Kosher on us, and I've yet to see any evidence of it eroding British society. Tarot's right about one thing though... it is mumbo jumbo crap.

It's an authentic Chinese dish, yes. My wife cooks it sometimes - never seen it in a London restaurant though.

The demonstration is being seriously undermined by the lack of a coherent aim or message. The statement on their website is so broad and vague, ranging from industry regulation through to global oppression. I wouldn't call the demonstration futile, as people have a good reason to be angry... if their primary objective is to communicate their anger to the government and the greater public, then so be it. But it is a shame that they are not being a bit more constructive.

An economy with "machines producing all the wealth and humanity merely consuming it" will probably never occur. Even in a fairly extreme scenario, computers and machines need to be manufactured, programmed, and maintained by people. The idea of machines which can do these three tasks themselves is interesting, but I doubt it will materialise because of two simple reasons. Firstly because the complexity of the machines/software we can build is limited by the capacity of the human brain. Secondly because mankind will never allow the construction a machine which has the slightest possibility of becoming a threat to us.