In the field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection. This heuristic (also sometimes called a metaheuristic) is routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and search problems.[1] Genetic algorithms belong to the larger class of evolutionary algorithms (EA), which generate solutions to optimization problems using techniques inspired by natural evolution, such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover.

I direct your attention to the first sentence. In the field of AI, in other words, an artificially created intelligence. Now even if you go to the the idea Turing had that a computer could learn and adapt itself to the point of AI, it is a device that had to be created by an outside designer at some point. It didn't just manifest, it was created and reached AI level, then it could at that point begin to try to 'imitate' natural selection.

It has become clear to me over our last couple of discussions that you are incredibly reluctant to think outside of the box YOU have created for yourself. You believe what you believe and damn the torpedoes with the rest.

You specifically are discussing an artificial intelligence. Why is it artificial? BECAUSE SOMEONE FUCKING CREATED IT. It didn't manifest on it's own or it would be a natural intelligence. So, if I create an AI to create an algorithm, then by default the algorithm is the root product of an intelligent designer.

BTW, your shitty example of a plane design does not even take into account your own example. If it did, it would be a programmer creating an AI to design a plane of some type. The programmer would no longer have input, but he would be the creator of the system that did.

So you can toss out all the fucking examples and insults you like, but you and your little tag along friend are dead wrong.

The sad thing for him is, in the eyes of others, you are as you appear in the eyes of others, not as you appear in your own.
He may believe he's not racist, just as Archie Bunker believed he was not racist, I mean he has a "black friend", Mr Jefferson over there (just don't ask Mr Jefferson about Archie).
If he only cares how he looks to himself, just saying his nonsense does the trick. If, on the other hand, he's trying to convince all those who read his comments that he's not racist, he's failing miserably.

I think they both need to watch this weeks episode of "through the wormhole", which dealt with racism and how and why, even though consciously you might not be racist, that doesn't matter so much when we are nearly ALL subconsciously racist (just to different levels). It was quite informative on the subject, and actually made sense of how many 'racist' people can honestly see themselves as non-racist.
In one experiment, racism was manifest in a 'shoot the man with the gun, don't shoot the man with the phone' experiment, where nearly everyone shot the black man with the phone more often than the white man with a phone, including the black people shooting, and everyone took less time to decide to shoot the black man, phone or gun. Amazingly, cops in the experiment seemed to do better than average at NOT shooting the black man, but still shot him faster and more often.

So you dislike the term accident?

I mean, if I have a car accident, would you say you love that term too? We know how car accidents happen, after all.

Or maybe it means 'unplanned'. I didn't plan on hitting that car, I didn't intend for my gamete to meet hers and successfully fuse and implant. I know that crashing, and pregnancy, are risks when I drive/fuck but that doesn't mean I intended for the risks to manifest at this particular moment in life.

And birth control failures are not extreme. They happen with alarming regularity (though they almost never result in pregnancies, much like actual sex). However - a woman who relies solely on male condoms for birth control has a 2% chance of getting pregnant that year (assuming average sex life). Hardly extreme stuff. 2 in every 100 sexually active women, fertile women who rely on condoms alone will get pregnant every year. It's between 1 in a 1000 to 1 in 100 for the contraceptive pill. Given how many people are having sex - this is not a rare thing.

i am not surprised we pretty much agree.

you should always be careful with any substance and to be informed is the first step.
was i careful at 15 with double barrel purple mescaline?---->nope.i was 15.

but i think the argument is getting caught up in distinctions,which is common.
when i speak of psychedelics,i am talking about:LSD,shrooms,mescaline.
and while exstacy is considered a psychedelic,and it IS a psychedelic (and awesome btw),i also consider that drug to be more a "club" drug,a designer drug,and yes...it can be fatal because often it is NOT mdma/mda you're are taking but a cocktail of bullshit with a few experimental chemistry molecules thrown in...so your cautionary tale is not exactly unfounded..but i have never seen shagen even suggest mdma/mda but almost exclusively:DMT.

now,i am fairly cautious in suggesting DMT to the uninitiated due to the fact of its potency (even in small amounts).there is no small build up with DMT,it goes from first gear to 15th in 2.2 seconds,and for a newcomer that can easily overwhelm and frighten.

for psychedelics to produce a positive and healthy response there first has to be interest in trying psychedelics out.the worst thing you could EVER do is "hey man,i just filled your beer with shroom tea" (you would notice though,that shit tastes like concentrated ass).

the person should also be in the right frame of mind and be in a place and with people they feel comfortable with and trust (very important the first time).knowing the dosage is important but not as important as you would think,as long as you take things slow and with patient care..things will sort out nicely.

as for death and permanent brain damage.i am not familiar with any cases except for the movie they showed us in the 7th grade with helen hunt thinking she could fly,because she took acid.i know psychedelics can affect a personality permanently (usually for the better) but nothing life threatening.i know too high a dosage on a novice mind can cause a "bad" trip and leave an unpleasant memory of the experience.there have been cases of latent mental illnesses manifesting due to the psychedelics,but it didnt CAUSE the mental illness.

from my own personal experience and what i have read,psychedelics are pretty safe.they are not a toy.they are an extremely powerful psychoactive compound that should always be treated with respect and to ignore that can have consequences.

but i dont think death and permanent brain damage are on that list.

unless you decided to do something stupid while tripping,but that is evolution,not psychedelics.

i could always come to california and we could drink shroom kool-aid.hang out on the moutain-side and watch the sunset and by the time we are watching the sunrise we will have become blood brothers and watched the universe expand in glorious birth pangs and then collapse upon itself in its death throes.talked to stars and danced with super novas.find ourselves in a meadow,thinking we walked half the state only to realize we are a 1/4 mile from your back porch.

i promise good times my friend.good times indeed.

Greece and Ukraine, two manifestations of the shock doctrine.

I agree with you, but to me it would still be more interesting if the power of the one ring was manifested in some more concrete way.

I guess that in general Tolkien wasn't big on allegory, which is why he looked down on interpretations of his work where people assume that the ring is a symbol for "atomic energy", or "technology" or "industry" or whatever. So, from his point of view it is probably better to make the ring more abstract. But, I still think that personally, I get more out of viewing the one ring as sort of an allegory for "power" in general, and the corrupting influence of that power. So, even though I know that your interpretation is correct to what Tolkien had in mind, I like to read his books with my own spin on things in that way.

@newtboy
Granted the advice isn't applicable to all situations, take the details of Digitalfiend's case for example, hence I didn't comment on that case (I had no advice, and I did consider it for a while. "Teach your dog not to play" wasn't a notion I was willing to back).
In light of the new info provided I state a disclaimer, the preparation you can do is limited by your circumstances.
Seems you've done well enough, and the occurrences for concern have locational limitations with positively influential perpetrators.
If I had had that, I wouldn't have gotten my 2nd awesome happy dog.

We weren't experienced trainers, however we did have an advantage and took the opportunity to start the training the day we got him as a pup, oppose to having got him later in his life.

As for the level of training, he came when called if he wanted, he stopped barking when he wanted, and he tried eating my cat, because he wanted.
With exception to my teasing kitty, he didn't eat without a command and he was incredibly road smart, as these 2 things were necessary for his survival and the maintenance of his high quality of life.

@robbersdog49
Yes there's assumptions, as I don't know newtboy or the respective living conditions and hardships (but my knowledge has marginally increased today).
Any assumptions of normalcy brought forth from a lack of advised uncommon details, is merely reviewing the situation as it has been described. Would you argue that I should have imagined some unstated details and responded to those?

We all make upwards of 100,000's of assumptions a day. The seat your sitting in, did you check it for poisonous spiders before sitting? why not? Is it because there wasn't any last time and you had no reason to suspect otherwise?
Our brains are smarter than we commonly realise and they use cheat sheets (commonly manifested as assumptions) to get us through every moment of our lives.
Holding humans to their likelihood driven assumptions is a frail thing as it's often met with "oh, i didn't know".

Victim blaming? No, not quite.
Fact: you have a greater chance of controlling your pets, then you do strangers.
The point is little more than to focus on the area's that you can more greatly and reliably influence. To simplify it, it's to aim for the greatest reward with minimal resource (in this case, effort).

The rest of your comment is idealistic. You get no argument from me as I agree, and no realistically debatable point has been made. We don't live in a utopia and those whom acknowledge this while aiming for something, stand a better chance of gaining a modicum of their interests.

"it would be good if people were good". Yes. Would. If. One day

@bobknight33
you are confusing a political argument with a scientific one.

as @bcglorf has pointed out,the science is already In and established.the debate is on the relative parameters i.e: how much/little the affects will manifest.
so while it has been established their IS climate change and man HAS affected that change.the debate is the varying degrees and the level of impact.

so we know there will be a global effect,the debate is HOW and WHEN it will manifest,and on a smaller scale,just how much influence humankind is responsible.

some predict an extinction level catastrophe,while other predictions are not quite as apocalyptic,but the debate on whether or not climate change is real..is over.

because that is a scientific debate.

now in the political arena,whose job is to obfuscate any relevant facts to muddy the argument to propel the interests of extremely monied and powerful interests,they create a faux debate to give the appearance that the debate is still ongoing and the science is not settled.

which is exactly what this video is addressing.
remember,they dont have to win the argument.they just have to make a reasonable sounding argument..even if based on bullshit...to make you think.."well,...maybe" and they GOTCHA!

so you can make this a liberal vs conservative argument if you wish,but i would just point out that you playing the game exactly they way they have set it up.to manipulate you.

as for your assertion of "liberal owned media".
dude...
stop parroting that tired old trope that does not hold up to one minute of scrutiny.you are literally doing the plutocrats work FOR them.
every outlet of media in the united states is owned and operated by FIVE companies.

FIVE.

and not a single one could even remotely be considered "liberal",because that does not serve their interests.

this debate is simply NOT a political debate,it is a scientific debate.
plain and simple...learn to recognize the difference buddy.

and stop being a tool for fuck sakes.../slap
you are better than that.

and just a side note,for my own personal pleasure and enjoyment:
@dannym3141 you are my fucking hero brother! between you and @newtboy i struggle to hold onto my cynicism around both of you.

you guys give me hope.

now lets go grab a smoke @bobknight33 cuz these pansies wont let me smoke inside and i have to do it on the patio and they keep trying to get me to drink that godawful "redbull" when crystal meth does a much better job.

sheesh..kids these days.

ok..enough ranting for today and smacking bob around.
ya'all stay awesome.

Nailed it dude!

The only angle I feel hasn't really come up so far is the idea that private enterprise and public governance could easily be regarded as two manifestations of the same "real" social dynamic: Establishment/challenger (or master/slave if you want to get fully Hegelian about it)

Like, why do we even develop governmental systems in the 1st place?

I have yet to conceive a better answer than: "to curb the destructive excesses of private wealth/power."

Why would we champion personal freedom? I would say: "to curb the destructive excesses of public wealth/power".

Or something to that effect at the very least. The idea of a society with either absolute personal, or absolute collective sovereignty seems hellish to me. And probably unworkable to boot!

There seems to me a tendency in the history of societies for these two types of power to dance either side of equilibrium as the real power struggle unfolds i.e. between reigning establishment and challenger power groups/paradigms.

Right now the establishment is both economic and governmental. The corruption is mutually supporting. Corporations buy and control governments, governments facilitate corporations ruling the market and continuing to be able to buy them.

The circle jerk @blankfist IMHO is between government and private dynasty and moreover I strongly believe that in a vacuum, one will always create the other.

Pure collectivism will naturally breed an individualist challenger and visa versa.

People are at their best I think when balancing self interest and altruism. Too much of either tends to hurt others around you and diminish ones capacity to grow and adapt. (being nice is no good if you lack the will and capacity to get shit done)

It seems natural that the ideal way of organising society would always balance collective state power, with private personal power.

Libertarianism (even the superior non anarchist version) defangs the state too much IMHO. Some collectivist projects such as education, scientific research and exploration I think tend to be better served by public direction. But more importantly I expect the state to referee the market, just as I expect public transparency to referee the state.

Total crowbar separation between the three: public officials cannot legally own or control private wealth and cannot live above standard of their poorest citizens. Private citizens cannot inherit wealth legally, only earn and create it. The state cannot legally hold any secret or perform any function of government outside public view unless it is to prepare sensitive legal proceedings (which must then be disclosed in full when actioned).

In the age of global communications this kind of transparency may for the first time be a workable solution (it's already near impossible to keep a lid on most political scandals and this is very early days). There is also the possibility of a steadily de-monetised market as crowdfunding and crowdsourcing production models start to become more advanced and practical than traditional market dynamics. e.g. kickstarter style collective investment in place of classical entrepreneurial investment.

The benefits and dangers of both capitalism and socialism here would be trending towards diffusion amongst the populace.

And then there's the whole Meritocracy vs Democracy thing, but that's really getting into another topic and I've probably already gone on too long now.

Much love

No, not saying that.

Religion is just the visible aspect.

Actually, it is a waste of time to talk about it with anyone who won't receive it.

So, when the person is looking, they will find it. But the truth is not to be found in the outward manifestation.

EV-9D9 was a sadistic Droid who tortured droids for fun, not to actually get information from them. She was a malfunctioning interrogation droid that in malfunction switched to torturing droids instead of humans as she was originally programed.

"EV-9D9 was just one of the malfunctioning EV-series supervisor/interrogator droid abominations created by MerenData and was one of the few droids who escaped capture when the EV-series supervisor/interrogator droid was to be destroyed after owners of the droids found out their cruel nature. While at Cloud City EV-9D9 added to herself a third eye just next to her left eye, which could "see" the droid equivalent of pain, which manifested as jumbled, incoherent signals. She had a pain simulator and a sadomasochistic personality, which was caused by an accidentally installed MDF motivator, taking great pleasure in the pain of droids. "
--http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/EV-9D9

I'd just like to say that this does go both ways though..

I know a couple of different guys with Asperger's and some other kinds of developmental issues from where i go swimming, and several times in the past i've seen a female react towards those guys like they've been weird or creepy when all they did was say "Hello" like i've seen them do a hundred times before to all types of people. I've even met women there who have spoken to me, been quite happy and talkative, what-have-you, even flirty, and then either said to me "some weird creepy guy <one of my friends> was trying to talk to me in the jacuzzi", or they might give me an "oh my god" look if one of them says hello to her. Body language, facial expression, how they talk all changes when they address them... I feel my skin crawl when i come across someone like that.

I only say this because i think that if we all try to be nicer and kinder to everyone, to be happy and interested in people, we can not only solve the issues raised by the video and in your comment, but also the ones raised in my comment, the ones not even mentioned here, like racism, facism and homophobia.

I think we need feminism, masculism, the LGBT, NAACP and god knows what else to all come together and realise that everyone is tackling the same problem which simply manifests itself in different proportions to different peoples - we're all here for one single life-time, so if we spend it being nicer and friendlier and more courteous and generous we can make life much more enjoyable all round, and no one will have to worry about cat-calling, bitchiness, homophobia or racism.

I would argue it's a manifestation of the same kind of thinking. Those Israelis believe the Gazan's are simply reaping what they sowed by supporting Hamas and therefore withhold compassion. Conversely, Hamas thinks it's okay to lob rockets at Israelis because the Israelis have occupied Palestine and set up the most egregious apartheid system in history (or as the UN Humanitarian Chief John Holmes called it in 2010, the world's largest "open air prison.").

Both sides have lost compassion for the other and that's why the violence continues unabated.

There is no doubt that these people are disgusting, but thankfully they are also rare. Every society has their fringe crazies - the US has Westboro Baptist Church, for instance - and they generally get way more attention than they deserve by being controversial.

This isn't to say that there isn't a problem with Israeli society's attitude toward the Palestinians, it's just to say that I think it is a problem that is far more subtle and widespread. Focusing so much attention on a small percentage of religious fanatics can be important because it does represent a movement and ideology that is problematic, but it has very little direct relevance to the current conflict.

The real problem, in my opinion, is a unique mixture of nationalism and a lopsided insulation from the reality of the conflict that is very common in Israeli society.

Israeli society is uniquely coherent in a particular way that stems from the relatively homogenous cultural identity facilitated by Judaism, and this coherence is also strengthened by the fact that Israeli society was built in the face of and as a direct result of considerable adversity. I think that this does allow for a sort of groupthink that inhibits Israel's ability to treat the Palestinians in a humane manner, but the effect manifests itself through society as a sort of cultural blindness and it manifests through the political process as hawkish policy.

(Also, whether or not you think they had the right to build that society in the first place is beside the point right now, I'm only talking about the existence of the unifying influence of adversity, and the effect it has on policy and the national psyche)

The other component of it is the simple fact that Israelis are extremely insulated from the realities of the Palestinian sufferings.

Even in the heat of a conflict like this, Israelis can pretty much go about their lives unimpeded. It is true that the rocket attacks are disruptive and that there is on a whole an unacceptably high level of danger from external attacks, but Israelis have leveraged a security apparatus that minimizes these realities in day to day life to an astounding degree, all things considered, and this fact is a double edge sword that creates a perfect breeding ground for indifference.

One side of the sword is that these measures are extremely effective at improving the lives of Israelis in the short term. However the other side of the sword is that it obviously makes these measures popular and politically successful. Furthermore, with all the calm and prosperity, it is very easy to forget about the abysmal conditions being imposed on 1.8 million people just thirty kilometers or so from your doorstep. The only time they really have to deal with the issue is when there is an inevitable flareup of violence at which point, naturally, people tend to be less empathetic. The rest of the time, during the lulls, the prospect of empathy is just placed on the back burner.

These are the tendencies that need to be addressed.

However calling Israel the 4th Reich and placing so much focus on youtube videos that give Israel's religious fanatics undue prominence is just as useless and destructive as all the Israelis and Israel sympathizers who insist on viewing Palestinian society as an unchanging, violent monolith that is accurately represented by its extremist elements.

The fact of the matter is that there are significant movements within Israeli society that are in fact attempting to change these trends. The same is true of Palestinian society, however it is more difficult for those movements because of the repressions imposed by Hamas, culture and environment.

If there is to be any hope in this situation, Israel's role as the dominant, occupying force means that they have the first move. They will have to shift from focusing on isolation and self-preservation to one of empathy to the average Palestinian, an empathy that is so strong that they must be willing to take considerable personal risks and let up their stranglehold on Palestinian society and allow them to prosper.

Because only then will the environment be in any way conducive for Palestinians to take considerable personal risks and defy the status quo en masse. Only then will the false succor of violent religious extremism loose its appeal.

Until that happens, we'll the cycle seems to return to square one every two or three years and I expect to have this discussion again sometime around 2017.

Unfortunately, it is going to be a hard and unlikely road because it takes a lot of empathy and effort to rise up and take huge risks during the times of quiet when prosperity and security easily distract from the continuing plight of the Palestinians. These aren't common traits. Humans are a very tribal species and we're not good at this kind of stuff when it concerns someone different who you don't have to interact with. This challenge is hardly unique to the Jews.