dr.syntax

REPLY: I never said FLOPS measurement was all there was to it. All these technological aspects to creating AI are discussed by the people, the real people actively involved in the different AI projects and those scientists concerned about all this discuss the different aspects and scenarios surrounding this issue in detail at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity . Anyone wishing to look into this can click onto that wiki link and learn what they have to say about any of it. The wiki article itself gives a relatively short overview, but links are provided throughout it`s entirety and at the end for different groups actively involved in the pursuit of AI and people and organizations concerned about it. ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: The implications of an AI entity, or much more likely entities, to self improve, self modify, self replicate or make new improved models of themselves seems to me absolutely limitless. Look at what we human beings have been able to accomplish technologically in the last one hundred years alone and how rapidly this progress has come about. There is a concept called: Moore`s Law: which states that the over all computing capacity of mankind doubles every 18 months. There are some who say that it now doubles every 9 months which if true,could mean we are entering into the transition era between what some refer to as the human era and the post-human era. I have looked at graphs that appear to indicate a sharp uptick in this rate of acceleration over the last 5 years. A carefull examination of the graph provided in that wiki article appears to me to show this uptick in the rate of acceleration of mankind`s computing ability. I`ve examined other more detailed graphs illustrating MOORE`S LAW , which more clearly illustrate this uptick. ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: Not only possible but inevitable argue many in that wiki article. Please read that article. Those questions are discussed at length by the people involved in all this. ...DS

I am going to use this response as an opportunity to mention a conversation between Stanislaw Ulman and John Von Neumann [ one of the premier mathematicians of the 20th century with a long list of accomplishments ] both of these men worked on the MANHATTAN project, with Neumann being one of the principal players in that endeavor. My point being these are serious minded scientists, one which is considered one of the most important scientists of the 20th century. In one of the first usages of the term singularity in the context of technological progress it is part of a conversation between Ulman and Neumann: Quoting Ulman " one conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life which gives the appearance of approaching some ESSENTIAL SINGULARITY in the history of the race beyond which human affairs as we know them could not continue." The year 1958 is cited. Both of these men have fascinating histories which are available by clicking onto their names when they appear highlighted in the wikipedia article at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity . If you have the time to look at this article it is an EYE OPENER. ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: I recall reading somewhere that human female breasts evolved as a secondary sexual attractant to men because they resembled the female buttocks. The usual approach for all primates other than humans is from behind. So it makes a certain sort sense. ...DS

REPLY: I would say uric acid because all you need to do is pee and there is some uric acid in the urine. ...ds

Many renowned scientists believe this event is all but inevitable and that the consequences of it are so far reaching that it will change our World profoundly. We will be living in the post human era if we manage to survive at all. Others argue it will go a very long ways in solving mankind`s most difficult problems and may even lead to human immortality. This event is predicted by many to occur within 5 to 30 years. Many of these scientists I am refering to are some of the most respected out there. To name a few, they include Stephen Hawking, Bill Joy, and Raymond Kurzweil. Wikipedia has provided an excellent article about all this at: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity ]. About 20 science PhDs are cited and include some of the great innovators and inventors involved in computer science among them. Many are what may be called FUTURISTS,such as Vernor Vinge,mathematics professor and computer scientist, but they are also science PhDs. This wiki piece also provides many links to the people referenced, prestigious organizations from around the World and links to other articles and such. You won`t be bored reading this article. ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: Who are you ,to decide who the WE are ? You are one of the SUCK HOLES who team up and attempt to shout down, get our postings degraded, locked down, whatever. We are fighting back,standing up for ourselves. tired of your all of your crap. Whatever,Dr.Syntax Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged It`s all about sucking up and you for sure know it. You are team SUCK HOLE all day everyday. ...DS

REPLY: Maybe you ought to quit worring about it unless you are a member of team SUCK HOLE. You seem to be acting that way. ....DS

REPLY: Don`t get shook up,the rest of team SUCK HOLE should be showing any time now. I hereby dub thee : THE SUCK HOLES. ...Whatever,Dr.Syntax ...... P.S. That new face icon you`re using is so scary, that`ll show them !

REPLY: I appreciate your comments. MY POLL IS ATOP MY POSTING. Do you know how to get my poll to follow the thead down ? OR ANYONE ELSE ?

REPLY: when you say suck do you mean suck up to? I see a lot of that going on around here. You have these cliques or teams that suck up to each other and will attack any person who stands up to any member of their suck up team. It`s happened to me many times and I see the same suck up team tear into others as well . Maybe we should come up with a name for them. Any suggestions ? The team that sucks up together stays together. That`s too long for a name,more like a motto. Lets see: THE SUCK HOLES . That sounds good. THE SUCK UPS. seems pretty good. That`s a good start. And give each other rep points and thier foes negative rep points. Well, Whatever. ...Dr.Syntax

Richard Feynman was the one I thought understood quantum mechanics better than anyone else. My opinion, nothing else. Now here are the quotes that surprised me: 1. " nobody understands quantum theory " 2. " I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics ". POLL: I agree...__ I disagree...__ I am not sure...__ Please feel free to add any comments you care to about this. ...Dr.Syntax .....I must have screwed because the poll appears above this posting. PLEASE SCROLL UP AND REGISTER YOUR VOTE

REPLY: I recall Linus Pauling in his book "GENERAL CHEMISTRY" saying something to the effect: that there is a spectrum of ionic to covalent bonds. From the most ionic gradually to the most covalent. He went into considerable detail about it. I don`t have a copy to look it up in. Any of you chemists care to expand on this ? Also didn`t one of his Nobel prizes have something to do with the nature of the chemical bond ? I could be wrong about all of this. ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: I read the article you linked to. One question that emerged in my mind was: If equal portions of matter and anti matter were created relatively shortly after the big bang would there not have been a REALLY BIG BANG when the two combined ? It seems if it were true that for every atom of matter an atom of antimater was created and there would be no reasn for them to have been at all dispersed from each other ,then they would have all met up and created the REALLY BIG BANG. I think the article may have said as much. Well then maybe what the Universe is now is the remnants of the REALLY BIG BANG.But how could that be because the only product of this reaction is supposed to be energy,electromagnetic energy,photons, however one wishes to word it. I think this also was alluded to in the article. So are there any explanations that can reconcile these seemingly reasonable assumptions ? ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: I`ve been wondering if there is any way of finding out who has gotten the most negative rep points ever. I suspect I am at least a contender in that regard as to the current record holder and I`ve only been here a couple of weeks or so. My current count is a minus 57 . I think it was a minus 58 yesterday so i`m losing ground in that regard. I think of myself as a pretty decent sort of guy and get on with many here quite well. For reasons I`m not quite sure of I have a devoted cadre of detracters. Oh Well,Whatever, ...Dr.Syntax ....Inow posted a complaint to me about the fact that I often sign off :" Whatever, Dr. Syntax " He apparently thinks he should have some say in the way I sign off. This is but one of many petty remarks he consistantly see`s fit to inform me of. He seems to enjoy ragging on me ,think I might start pointing them out in the forum . Seems fair to me . ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: I think Wikipedia does explain about as much as is known and has many interesting and colorful illustrations to aid in doing so. If you wish to you can see all this at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere . It`s there if you think the long list of scientists at the end of the article are qualified to comminicate with you. I am not, I can just tell. ...Dr.Syntax

I misinterpreted your meaning. MEA CULPA ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: My example of copper wire would seem to answer this question. Is it called ductability,the ability to be drawn out into thin wires. Would`nt this make it flex more or not. I`m not sure at all . There`s a real chemist there if he`s still there. John, can you answer this ? The reason I used copper as an example is that it is well known for it`s ductability. It is also copper that when mixed with zinc becomes the mixture or alloy called brass. Varying the proportions varies the different properties such as hardness and ductability wich may or may not answer your question. ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: You are wrong about this. Of course with a strong enough PH change this would be true for most enzymes. But many enzymes depend on changing PH values as a way of regulating them. For an thorough explanation of this with graphs and such go to : http://plantphys.info/plant_physiology/enzymekinetics.shtml . Scroll down about halfway or more to the section titled: Enzyme conformation is altered by PH change. ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: There are a very many different enzymes evolved to do a wide variety of tasks. The making or breaking of chemical bonds of many different types. It`s from the" molecular standpoint" because each of these different enzymes are designed,shaped to deal with a specific molecule. The PH value`s effect on any specific enzyme would depend on wich enzyme it is. As far as I know most of what is produced by enzymes are not ions though some may very well be, that part I don`t know off hand and can`t answer. Why not do a google search such as : do some enzymes produce ions ? You`ll probably learn a lot about enzymes in general. Here is a good website to learn about enzymes at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme . ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY:Tensile strength,flexibility would allow for a difference. I always thought metals such as copper could be drawn out in some manner. Is`nt that the way they in fact do make copper wire. I could be all wrong about this. ...Dr.Syntax

Reply: I say it has no gravity and no mass. I seem to recall that it is said to: behave as both a partical and a wave. That is not the same as saying it is a particle and is a wave. This is from way back when. What are they teaching nowdays. Did they figure all that out. What are some of the new theories being kicked around. ...Dr.Syntax