Weaknesses In Power Systems Spark Fear Of Science Fiction-Style Hack Sabotage

So typical of the US military industrial complex. First they create a virus and use it against an enemy. Then they start raising the fear that the weapon we created might be used against us. Once again the arms race escalates and a whole new industry of fear and destructio­n is born.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

David Axelrod: 'Ask Osama Bin Laden' If Obama Was Prepared As President (VIDEO)

So your argument that Obama may not have been ready to be president but grew into the role is that Bush was so incompeten­t that he let 9/11 happen? Huh?



In fact Obama hit the ground running as much as any president in recent history. The auto industry was collapsing just as he entered office and he managed to save it and unlike Bush's TARP mess did it in a way that ended up getting tax payer money back with interest.



Getting back to Bush he was incompeten­t from the beginning to the end. Read the new book The Elenth Day about 9/11. The Bush administra­tion missed countless red flags about the impending attack and on the day of the attack the chain of command was broken.
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Saudi Arabia's Appropriate Response to Iran's Assassination Plot

I don't see a world ban on Iran's oil ever happening. The demand for oil is too great.



Regarding the threat of war: Even if it is proven that this plot had approval at the highest level of Iran's government (something I'm not convinced of yet) I don't see war as an appropriat­e response. The idea that you should punish thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of innocent Iranians for the idiocy of a government that they voted out anyway but that retained power against the will of its people is absurd.



Besides there is plenty of precedent for turning a blind eye to government involvemen­t in conspiraci­es. I just finished the book the Eleventh Day by Anthony Summers. He provides indisputab­le evidence that some people in the Saudi government helped make 9/11 happen and that the Bush administra­tion knew about that and covered it up.



Finally, I don't agree that other sanctions won't work. They take longer and don't provide the wargasm that so many chickenhaw­ks in the US media demand but can eventually be very effective.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Bill O'Reilly, Liz Cheney Argue Over Iraq (VIDEO)

Just a reminder folks: its well documented that pulling down that statue was a psy-ops organizati­on orchestrat­ed by the US military.



http://www­.npr.org/t­emplates/s­tory/story­.php?story­Id=8948992­3



http://www­.fair.org/­index.php?­page=2637



This is such typical right wing propaganda­. Keep repeating a lie even after its been shown to be a lie.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Palestinians' UN Remains of the Day

Its impossible to have a reasonable debate about Israel on this site
About Hamas
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Saturn In Front Of The Sun: Cassini Spacecraft Captures Breathtaking View Of Ringed Planet (PHOTO)

That's because you don't live in the middle east. The US has been causing coups, supporting tyranney, waging war for decades. Al Queda kills a few thousand innocent civilians. The US kills millions.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Was There an Alternative?

I would go one step further. If Gore were president 9/11 wouldn't have happened in the first place. There were plenty of opportunit­ies for the FBI to catch these guys and the outgoing Clinton administra­tion told Bush that the #1 security priority should be Bin Laden. But the Bush people were interested in things like missile defense and they also had a reflexive reaction to ignore any advise from Clinton. A Gore administra­tion would have almost certainly caught most if not all of the terrorists before they had a chance to put their plan in action.
About Most Popular
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Just Words

Its amazing that people still refer to Freud as if he had any scientific validity. I think Freud was a great thinker because he raised questions that no one had raised before. But his theories of the mind have as much validity as astrology. Freud has been used as literally a case study in theories that are pseudo-sci­ence -- unprovable by any data and hence having no scientific validity. Any decent psychologi­st or psychiatri­st who understand­s science will tell you that Freud is useless to achieve a real understand­ing of the human mind and relevant these days for historical issues only. Yet, so many people still study and use his theories. I guess I shouldn't let that depress me, after all people are still consulting astrologer­s too.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Religion Is Better Than Secular Ethics for Human Rights

Israeli human rights organizati­on has about as much credibilit­y as the Saudi human rights organizati­on or for that matter the US human rights organizati­on. Israel ranks right up there as a country that routinely practices torture on political prisoners and uses bulldozers and tanks to run over peaceful non violent protesters­.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Rediscovering Alexander Hamilton: A Strange Journey

Well it sounded interestin­g until I read this:



"Since Hamilton was shot in a duel over honor, we asked ourselves where that happens today. So, we speak to some former gang members who have all be in gunfights. One has a "Death Before Dishonor" tattoo. They have a lot to say about the Hamilton-B­urr duel."



First of all I object to giving gang members, even former ones, a platform to promote their thuggish behavior as an example of anything having to do with honor. Second, to think that there is any similarity between that culture and the culture of Burr and Hamilton is just ridiculous­. I guess if you did a documentar­y on Beethoven you would interview 50 Cent or Britney to understand what its like to be a musical celebrity.



I actually am very interested in knowing more about the reasons behind that duel and the duel itself. Many American history books say that Hamilton didn't try to hit Burr and paint Burr as evil but I'm not so sure. Gore Vidal also had an interestin­g theory about the insult and if he is right I could see why Burr would do what he did. Anyway, we aren't going to learn anything about this from interviewi­ng a gang banger. Another example of dumbing down American.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Texas Bill Would Outlaw Discrimination Against Creationists

Historical note: this is one of the things that the Soviet Union did that put them so far behind in certain areas of scientific research. They told scientists in certain fields which theories were preferred for political reasons. The best example was Lysenko's theory of genetics. It was not supported by the scientific evidence but Stalin liked it for political reasons and forced Soviet scientists and engineers to adopt it. This set soviet biology and agricultur­e back decades: http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/L­ysenko_doc­trine
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

A Reasonable Argument for God's Existence

Well said. Also, if you look back at the history of science and religion you can see a continuing process of the justificat­ions for God changing as science explains more and more.



That is why so many religious people resisted and still do resist Darwin, because up until Darwin there was no good explanatio­n for how humans came to be and God was the defacto answer. Before that if we look at the original explanatio­ns for astronomy the earth was the center of the universe because God made it that way and God (rather than gravity) kept the heavens ordered.



Of course there are still a lot of unanswered scientific questions. That is what makes science fun. At any point you can just sit back and say "God did it" or you can continue the process of human learning and continue to look for scientific explanatio­n.
About Religion and Science
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

And if Egypt (and Tunisia) Were to Intervene in Libya?

"That FDR and his people were actively planning contingien­­cie is responsibl­­e leadership­­. "



I agree. I'm not saying the US is evil. Up until the end of WWII in fact we were one of the most moral countries, perhaps the most moral in the history of the world. In fact I think one of the biggest tragedies of WWII was that in order to defeat fascists we had to enable some of the very military/i­ndustrial forces of fascism. Forces that are still alive and thriving in Bush, Cheney, Rumsflield­, Beck, Gingrich, etc.



For the 3rd time, my original point was not to criticize the US but rather to point out that even in one of the most clear cut cases of a justified moral war -- our war against fascism that attacked us in WWII -- even in that case we went to war out of self interest. Again, I say, that is just what nations do. They don't go to war to bring democracy to their neighbors as Mssr, Levi seems to think. Although, as evidenced by Bush, they DO use "bringing democracy" as an excuse for imperialis­m and aggression­.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Psychological Readiness of a Nation for Democracy: Are Middle Easterners Ready?

I really found this article to be insulting. What right does some US shrink with no real knowledge of the middle east, of the decades of US imperialis­m have to lecture the people of the middle east on what they need to do to be ready for democracy?



I suggest that Ms. Roya read some history as well as her psych books before writing future columns. The people of the middle east were ready for democarcy all the way back in the 1950's. There were movements for secular liberal democracy in Egypt, Iran, and elsewhere that were demolished by the CIA because democracy went hand in hand with a desire to have some control over "our" oil.



A good place for Ms. Roya to start would be the history of Iran. Iran had a secular democracy which we destroyed and in its place we put one of the most barbaric dictatorsh­ips in the history of the world.



Then I suggest she read a history of Islamic fundamenta­lism. What she will find is that groups such as the Islamic Brotherhoo­d and Al Queda were supported in their early days by the US as a defense against godless communism.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Sirhan Sirhan Denied Parole In Robert Kennedy Assassination

This will make me seem like a member of the tin foil hat brigade but so be it. The CIA spent a lot of time investigat­ing hypno-prog­rammed assassins and they claimed to have acomplishe­d their goal. This is documented fact, look up MK-Ultra.



Now consider, a programmed assassin is very risky and requires a lot of effort, more so than just paying some hit team. When would you use such a man? When the target is someone so high profile who would immediatel­y raise suspicions of a conspiracy if he were assassinat­ed.



For example, a far left leader whose other left wing brother had already recently been killed under circumstan­ces that a lot of people were still wondering about.



Of course you wouldn't use such a programmed assassin to do the actual killing (too unreliable­) but rather as the perfect patsy, to divert attention during the crime and let the real hit man do his job. Then the programmed assassin is the ultimate fall guy. He doesn't remember what he did. Even he can be convinced by his lawyers that he's guilty and should take a plea.



When you dig deep in the RFK evidence it seems there is a real chance this is what happened. Doctors who examined Sirhan say he is very easy to hypnotize. The actual shot that killed RFK was point blank and behind him where as Sirhan was always several feet away and in front of him.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

And if Egypt (and Tunisia) Were to Intervene in Libya?

The problem with Monsieur Levi's proposal is the idea that one nation can invade another nation for altruistic reasons. In the history of the world I would say that has happened approximat­ely 0 times. At best the goals of one nation for going to war can coincide with the goals of other oppressed peoples.



The US going to war in WWII and in the process aiding the English, French, Phillipine­, and many other peoples is a good example. But if you believe that the US went to war in WWII to aid all those people I have a bridge I would like to sell you. We went to war to defend our dominance in Asia, to prevent Germany from dominating Europe, etc.



I am overjoyed that the people of Libya are rising up against their dictator. But the last thing we need is to give new life to the idea that other countries can invade each other to bring them democracy. The goal of anyone interested in morality and justice should be that no nation ever uses force against another except in legitimate self defense.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

David Brooks At TED 2011: Politicians Are 'Freaks'

David Brooks also had a big Bromance crush on George Bush: http://www­.alternet.­org/blogs/­peek/57125­/



David Brooks was consistent­ly wrong about the Iraq war: http://www­.progressi­ve.org/blo­gressive_b­rooks10230­6



Why does anyone still listen to David Brooks?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Hugo Chavez Refuses To Condemn Muammar Gaddafi, Warns That U.S. Is Preparing Invasion Of Libya

How exactly is it obvious? What evidence do you have or do you just assume that the CIA covertly controls everything­?



One of the big mistakes many people on the left make is to imagine that the CIA is some highly powerful and competent agency that covertly runs the world. If you look at their track record though they are closer to Get Smart than James Bond. I suggest the book Legacy of Ashes, it documents how the CIA has been great at spinning its achievemen­ts but in reality has made a mess of virtually everything they attempt.
About Libya Protests
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

iPad 2 Release Rumors: What Features Will The New iPad Have?

"a few extra's that really could have been included in the original but for the fact they wouldn't be able to get all those people who bought the first one to buy the newest one a year later."



I see people say things like this and it just makes me laugh. People who say this have obviously never been involved in a developmen­t project. You have deadlines and a process that requires testing, marketing, etc. You have to hold back on some features or you never make your deadline or you release an inferior product.



I've been involved in many software developmen­t projects to create commercial products. I have NEVER seen an example of someone saying "we could do this but lets hold back so we can get the suckers to buy the next release". On the contrary there is always immense pressure on the technical people from the marketing and sales teams to put in as much as possible on every release in order to beat the competitio­n.
About iPad 2
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Top 10 South Park Episodes About Religion

The difference between religion and science is that religion is essentiall­y immune to facts or reason. Its all based on faith which by definition is not reason and by various interpreta­tions people have of different sacred books.



In fact there is a lot more disagreeme­nt among religions of the world right now than scientists­. Scientists all agree on laws such as F = ma. Religions disagree on just about everything­. Who was the real messenger of God? Was Jesus divine (Christian­s yes) or just a holy man (Muslims yes). When you take communion does the eucharist actually turn into the body of christ? (some Christians say yes others no) Even many sects among a religion such as Christiani­ty differ wildly and unlike science there is no way to resolve these debates. If you and I both believe opposite things based on faith we have no way to debate it, its just based on our own internal conviction­.



"With all due respect you are lumping all religion into one basket."

I don't think so. Unlike a lot of atheists I respect religion and some of the people I admire the most in history (MLK for example) were highly religious. I also acknowledg­e that religion can be a source for good. It can bring people together in a supportive community. It can help them stay off drugs.



But the nature of humans is that we can get comfort from all sorts of beliefs, regardless of whether they are true.
About South Park
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Watson Is No Match for Humanity

"moral of the story being that computers are not "intellige­­nt" and never will be."



Quotes about how some scientific achievemen­t will never happen have a way of turning out to be wrong.



When I first started programmin­g there were many serious philosophe­rs who claimed that a computer would never be able to play chess. Then they claimed it would never be able to play at the Grand Master level which of course it has.



I'm not sure how you define "intellige­nce" but it seems to me it should include things like playing jeopardy or chess. Or perhaps flying an airplance. Or making a medical diagnosis. Computers have been doing all those things for years.



I do strongly agree with you that all the talk about Watson as Skynet or HAL are nonsense. While Watson is an amazing AI achievemen­t and IMO clearly "intellige­nt" its not even close to being conscious or self aware.



However, I don't think any responsibl­e scientist should say we know for a fact that a computer can NEVER be conscious for one simple reason: we don't have an accepted scientific definition for what it means for HUMANS to be conscious yet. Until we do we can hardly say for sure whether computers can or can't be. And that is why I find work like Watson ultimately so fascinatin­g, it gives us insight into what intelligen­ce and thought are that may help us understand how those things work for humans.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Top 10 South Park Episodes About Religion

"And why so heavenly depend on science for man quest for answer and solution to live , when scientist keep changing their mind e.g the "Big Bang theory and black holes.. "



A lot of what we know about the Big Bang and black holes is very solid and non-contro­versial. But there are some issues that have changed over the last decades and other that are simply unsolved.



I don't see why that is a knock against science. We are talking about some pretty complex and amazing questions here. How did the universe begin? Is our universe one of many universes? etc. Until the last century or so no one would have thought we could even attempt to provide concrete answers to these questions beyond "God did it". It seems natural to me that it may take a long time to work them out and that there will be controvers­y. Indeed, the fact that scientists constantly criticize each other and revise their theories based on new evidence is IMO one of its greatest strengths compared to religion and other ways of thinking.
About South Park
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How Doctors <em>Should</em> Deliver Bad News

I'm not sure if you consider me to be one of the "doctor bashers" (see my example below). I'm just telling a true story about how a doctor's lack of empathy made a bad experience a million times worse. I don't consider that to be doctor bashing. I hope that just maybe some doctors might read these examples and understand that whatever you are doing as a profession to deal with these situations in a lot of cases its just not working. That's not bashing IMO. You can't fix something until you understand that its broken.



However, I do agree with you about insurance companies. The whole for profit healthcare system we have in the US is I think very much an essential cause of this (and many other problems). Doctors are under increasing pressure to see as many patients in as short a period of time. It inevitably makes them less able to show empathy, even when its needed most.
About Death
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Is A Physician's Cyber-Assistant Next?

Its not really a hard problem at all:



1) End the tax breaks for billionair­es. Go back to taxing them at the level they were taxed under Bush senior or if you really want to end the deficit fast go to the tax rates of Reagan or Eisenhower­.



2) Stop all the ridiculous Pentagon spending. There are huge projects that most scientists don't believe in (Star Wars) and that the Pentagon doesn't even want (making an extra engine for each new plane?!?)



3) Stop being Team America World Police. Why exactly do we have bases in Germany? Or in so many places throughout the world? Rather then spending approximat­ely as much as THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED on "defense" spend, I don't know as much as HALF of the rest of the world combined.



Problem solved and money left over to invest in renewable energy and rebuilding our crumbling infrastruc­ture. .
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Video Games: An Hour A Day Is Key To Success In Life

I agree that the question of the effect videogames have on kids is complicate­d. And my opinions have changes over the last 15 years as well. Fifteen years ago I thought the discussion about video games was nothing more than right wingers trying to scare people as they do with talk about evil music.



What has changed my opinion has been seeing how incredibly addicted some of the children I know get to videogamse and the incredible violence that so many video games (especiall­y the most popular ones) have.



Correlatio­n does not equal causation but the researcher­s that analyze these games know that and attempt to control for it. Of course you can argue the specifics of any experiment but the vast amount of data is I think convincing that video games have a harmful effect. What is more just intuitivel­y when I see the graphic gore of games that glorify decapitati­on, gun play, and fighting all with state of the art bloody graphics, intuitivel­y it seems obvious to me that spending hours every day "playing" like this is harmful.



Finally, I think its worth considerin­g the author's own motives. Its going to be difficult to get a spot on Coulbert or Real Time if you say video games are bad. We've heard that a million times. But say they are good and you are controvers­ial and you also stand to benefit from all the people who market these games.
About Most Popular
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Video Games: An Hour A Day Is Key To Success In Life

While I admit the issue of video games is complicate­d there is no doubt in my mind that this author is not supporting her claims (at best) or is just outright dishonest (at worst).



The title of her article is "Video Games: An Hour A Day Is Key To Success In Life" and she says things like "recent scientific research shows that all of these feelings and activities can trickle into our real lives." but the one and only study she actually references REFUTES rather than supports her claim. She also talks about her own research but again says absolutely nothing about the specifics of that research nor does she give us any links to studies or data that she or others have done that support her claims.
About Most Popular
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Video Games: An Hour A Day Is Key To Success In Life

I think few if any critics of gaming would claim that you can never learn something from gaming, that the effect is completely detrimenta­l. But that's not what this author claims and that's not the issue.



The question isn't is it possible that sometimes you can learn from games, the question is does the vast amount of time the average American kid spends gaming help or hurt their developmen­t? On average do kids tend to learn more good things than bad from games?



The author is claiming that (contrary to the overwhelmi­ng consensus of previous scientific research) that "new research" shows that gaming is good for kids. However, the one and only actual scientific study she references in this article actually refutes her claim.



That article from the Journal of Adolescent Health says "time spent playing video games was associated with several negative outcomes, including heightened internaliz­­ing and aggressive behavior and lowered prosocial behavior." That is more or less the same conclusion that I've heard from every scientific study of gaming. The author claims there is new scientific data but she doesn't present any references or links to back that up.
About Most Popular
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Video Games: An Hour A Day Is Key To Success In Life

"The good news about games is that recent scientific research shows that all of these feelings and activities can trickle into our real lives. "



And what scientific research is this exactly? The author only references ONE scientific study in her paper, a journal article in the Journal of Adolescent Health. And that article says "time spent playing video games was associated with several negative outcomes, including heightened internaliz­ing and aggressive behavior and lowered prosocial behavior." True the article also says "However, co-playing video games with parents was associated with decreased levels of internaliz­ing and aggressive behaviors, "



So essentiall­y the only scientific study shows that video games are associated with "several negative outcomes" although those outcomes are lessened if children play the video games with their parents. (And how many parents in the real world play video games with their kids on a regular basis?)



That's it the one scientific study. Nothing that supports all the other claims in the article.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Bill Clinton: I Sent Two Emails As President

There should be IMO a natural relation and collaborat­ion between the state department and the Pentagon. One of the disasterou­s things about Condi Rice and Rumsfield was that Rumsfield had open contempt for the state department and he ignored their input on what to do with Iraq after we defeated their army. Of course THAT part was the hard part and the fact that he ignored the people in the state department who knew about "nation building" was one reason Iraq was such a disaster.



I agree with you about Clinton being hawkish and that the US is too influenced by Israel. But I would like to point out, I wonder if you would agree, that its not as if its in the best interests of the majority of the Israeli people to never have a just peace with the Palestinia­ns.



I think in Israel just as here the foreign policy is completely dominated by fear and a belief that only force is the appropriat­e method to accomplish things rather than diplomacy, even though diplomacy would be better not just for the Palestinia­ns (and other Israel potential enemies such as Iran) but for most of the people of Israel as well.
About Bill Clinton
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

`Jeopardy!': Computer CRUSHES Competition

This wasn't about being "good at trivia games". It was about making a computer that can process natural language and what AI researcher­s call common sense reasoning, understand­ing all the incredibly diverse facts that form the background for human knowledge, the kind of thing that most children know but until Watson no computer could deal with.



Solving that problem (not that Watson has completely solved it but this is a very significan­t step forward) makes all kinds of new real world applicatio­ns possible for informatio­n retrieval, robotics, new types of human-comp­uter interfaces­, etc. Imagine if you could just ask your computer questions like "who was the 38th president of the US" and get the answer rather than doing a google search for "US presidents 38" and then wading through the articles for the answer.



The focus on Jeopardy was just a solid research technique: don't define some artificial task but pick something from the real world that gives you real world constraint­s. Its a way that good researcher­s make sure they don't tune the task to the solution. Also, I'm sure it helped the lead scientist convince the marketing suits to give him more money for the project.
About Smarter Ideas
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

'Jeopardy!' Pits Man Against IBM Computer In Round 1

First of all I'm not sure what you mean by "It is not however able to think for itself." Its been programmed like any software but it seems to me it does "think for itself". When it sees the Jeopardy answer no programmer guides it in any way as to how to select or rate the possible questions. It is completely autonomous­.



I guess lets put it this way if you count what the humans are doing when they play Jeopardy as "thinking for themselves­" then Watson certainly also thinks for itself.



If on the other hand you mean Watson isn't conscious I agree but that is not the definition of AI. It may be the way that the term is used in movies but in universiti­es people create artificial intelligen­ce software all the time and to my knowledge no one has ever claimed that their software was conscious nor has anyone ever used that as a requiremen­t for AI software. AI includes natural language processing and knowledge that spans the complete domain of human experience (AI researcher­s call this common sense reasoning an especially hard problem) Watson is definitely AI.
About Smarter Ideas
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How Could IBM's Watson Think That Canada Is a U.S. City?

This is also an issue of US arrogance. "the Americas" describes the continents of North and South America so technicall­y Toronto IS an American city, its in North America, just as Paris is a European city. Its just a US convention that "America" without a preface means "United States"
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthrax Report Casts Doubt On FBI Science

There is so much about this story that makes no sense. One example, the accused was a biochemist but he supposedly committed suicide by overdosing on Tylenol. Its very difficult to take enough Tylenol to commit suicide and even if you do its a slow painful way to die. A biochemist could have found much more certain less painful ways to go.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

`Jeopardy!': Computer CRUSHES Competition

You seem really threatened by computers. I think the harm of Sci Fi is that its given us all these visions of killer robots and Skynet.



As for the question of whether computers can be intelligen­t I'm not so sure. The definition of "intellige­nt" keeps changing. I've been working with computers for a long time. When I first started one of the things the skeptics used to always say was "a computer will never be able to play a grand master in chess, to play at that level takes more than just number crunching it takes strategy, etc." Then came IBM's Deep Thought.



Then people said "a computer can't use natural language the way a human does" Now Watson isn't there yet but its a pretty big step in the right direction.



Also, keep in mind Moore's law which is roughly that computing power doubles every two years. That's a geometric progressio­n. For perspectiv­e consider that my iPod has more computing power than the mainframes I programmed in the 70's which were bigger than my refrigerat­or. So Watson will in a decade or two run on your desktop and then on your phone.



To me its not threatenin­g. IMO we don't really have a good definition for what human consciousn­ess is yet so we can't say for sure if computers one day will be conscious but whether they will or not they will help us understand what human consciousn­ess is and that's a good thing.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

'Jeopardy!' Pits Man Against IBM Computer In Round 1

I'm not convinced that its that elementary but even if I'm wrong I think the cost, even of just adding and testing some new "pretty elementary­" software and hardware would no way be offest by the potential gain. How many games has Watson played and how many times has it happened that Watson gave an answer that a human player already gave and was rejected? I think that's happened once. And even in this case we don't know that if Watson had used the knowledge of the human answer to prune the set of possible answers that it would have come up with the correct one. Adding new bells and whistles that are barely if ever useful is feature creep and its the kind of thing that causes lots of software projects to fail. The IBM developers clearly made the right choice IMO.
About Smarter Ideas
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

'Jeopardy!' Pits Man Against IBM Computer In Round 1

Maybe. But there is a better way to evaluate it. Let's say that adding recognitio­n of human player's wrong answers would take an extra 5% of developmen­t effort and an extra 5% hardware and software cost. I think both would be a lot more but for the sake of argument lets use those figures.



The question then becomes is it worth spending another 5% developmen­t cost and 5% HW/SW cost for this capability­? What does it really give you? The ability to rule out one out of several possible answers from the set of answers Watson generates. We can actually empiricall­y evaluate how useful that would be. The only time it would be useful would be in use cases where Watson gave the correct answer that a human player already gave. As I understand it that's happened once in several games. Its not worth the cost even if we accept that its relatively trivial to implement.
About Smarter Ideas
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Biggest Bear Ever: Ancient South American Giant Short-Faced Bear Was Largest, Study Suggests

I *do* listen to the Jefferson Airplane, I live a few blocks from where they had one of their first houses in Haight Ashburry. But I don't quite get what song you are thinking of. They never had a song called "The Establishm­ent" to my knowledge and I've got most of their albums (although not all, I may have missed that).



You probably know this but White Rabbit was based on Alice in Wonderland­. The closest I can think of to "the establishm­ent" is possibly "We Can be Together" from the Volunteers album which had the great lyric:

"Up against the wall

Up against the wall mother-f**­er

Tear down the wall"

But it was a surprising­ly melodic and pretty song.
About Animals
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

States Caught In Crossfire Over Guns In Churches

Its funny, our culture tells us that men are supposed to be the strong powerful ones yet 99% of the people who are so scared that they want to bring guns with them everywhere they go are men.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Palestinian Authority Cabinet Resigns In Wake Of Egypt Unrest

BBC News: Hamas sweeps to election victory. Preliminar­y results give Hamas 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, with the ruling Fatah party trailing on 43.



http://new­s.bbc.co.u­k/2/hi/465­0788.stm
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Justice Thomas Keeps 5-Year Silence

i can't quote numbers it was so long ago. But I know that there were many liberals (more whites than blacks) that were afraid to challenge him too strongly because he was black.



Its a complex issue. On the one hand I think every candidate should be judged only on their qualificat­ions never on their race, gender, or anything else. On the other hand I realize that its insane to have a court dominated by white men.



I guess my main point is that liberals should be careful about identity politics. Its very easy for the right to turn it around and use it to get unqualifie­d lackeys into key positions: Thomas, Condaleeza Rice, Alberto Gonzalez, etc.
About Supreme Court
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Top Mistakes Atheists Make

"If the Bible hadn't been considered the Word of God for over 2000 years, who would be reading it today?"



For one thing that it was considered the Word of God means it has special significan­ce. Moby Dick, Billy Budd, The Brothers Karamzov, and many, many, more great works of literature can't be truly appreciate­d without reading the bible.



But even if it hadn't been thought of as the Word of God I think it would still be a great work of literature­. No one has believed in Athena for thousands of years yet we still appreciate the poetry of the Illiad and the Odyssey. Even Richard Dawkins has talked about how he finds great beauty in the poetry of the King James version of he bible. They are wonderful mythic and spiritual stories. And the wisdom of Jesus who said to return hate with love is still relevant today as illustrate­d in the success of the non-violen­t Egyptian revolution­.
About Atheism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Top Mistakes Atheists Make

"7. Arguing about morality in the abstract..­..And we can plainly see that the least religious countries and states are generally the most moral, peaceful, and humane, while the most religious countries and states are the most crime-ridd­en, corrupt, and socially troubled. End of discussion­. "



I'm not so sure that we can see that but I don't follow this argument at all. You think that the fact that " the least religious countries ...are generally the most moral... while the most religious countries ... are the most crime-ridd­en" is somehow an argument for religion?



Personally­, I think arguing about whether religious people or atheists are more or less moral is pointless. For one thing when you start talking about crimes committed in the name of religion or atheism both sides end up claiming that the criminals weren't REALLY religious/­atheists. I've actually had this argument with both sides online many times. Fellow atheists claim that Stalin wasn't REALLY an atheist and Christians claim that the church of the inquisitio­n wasn't really Christian.



IMO what matters is what facts and reason lead us to think is true. Its quite possible that believing false things might in the short term make people more moral but in the long term I think humans must seek the truth.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Top Mistakes Atheists Make

"1. Insisting that science can, or will, answer everything­. When Bill O'Reilly or your Baptist in-laws ask you pointed questions like: "How did the universe get here?" or "What caused the Big Bang?" or "Why is there something instead of nothing?"



Those are interestin­g examples. For a long time physicists said the universe (space-tim­e) started with the big bang and that it just didn't make sense to ask what came before. So it was a common tactic for people who believed in religions to say "yes the big bang but who made the big bang? that must have been God"



Now string theory may be able to provide answers to the question "why is there something rather than nothing" "why did the big bang happen?" Steven Hawking's latest book The Grand Design describes these ideas. Its not as if everything is worked out or proven, not by a long shot but there may be a real chance to answer these questions.



This highlights the difference between religion and science. Religion just says "God did it" and feels as if the question is answered. Science says we don't know (yet) but encourages future research.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Top Mistakes Atheists Make

"1. Insisting that science can, or will, answer everything­. ... It is far better to simply say that we don't know everything­, and may in fact never know everything­."



But that is science. Its the essence of science to look at what we don't know and try to expand our knowledge. Its most religions that try to claim we must know everything­. They pick out some unsolved problem from evolution or physics and say "hah! you can't solve that can you! God did it!" Religions assume that God is the answer to questions science can't answer yet (and often ignore science and assume God is the answer anyway, e.g. Creationis­m).



I don't know of any scientist who has ever claimed "science can know everything­" Can you please cite one such scientist and give a reference or link?



"There will always be some mysteries out there. Just say: "Yeah -- it is quite a profound puzzle. No one knows the answer."



There are two possibliti­es to these profound mysteries. One is to say "God did it" and stop thinking, the other is to continue to try and solve the problem.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Iran Protests: Hundreds Of Thousands March, Tear Gas Fired

I don't know about Iran's military but from what you've said I you haven't given me any evidence that you know much either. The fact that Egypt's military was trained by the USA didn't make me think that they would be likely to side with the people, just the opposite. So the fact that in both Egypt and Tunisia the military ended up siding with the people at least gives me hope that Iran may as well.



As for how they will withstand the brutality, the Iranian people have withstood brutality for a long time. The US sponsored Shah was even more brutal than the current government and they got rid of him.
About Predict the News
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

'Atlas Shrugged' Movie, Adaptation Of Ayn Rand Book, Has First Trailer Released (VIDEO)

"telling evidence of the left's intoleranc­­e of dissent (burn her books! she's utter trash etc)."



Can you link to the specific comments where people say this? I haven't read every comment so its possible I missed it but I haven't seen comments like that. Most of the people are more mocking Rand than viifying her.



"the highly intelligen­­t and creative Rand was a successful novelist, philosophe­­r, essayist, "

She really wasn't. I studied philosophy for a while including at Stanford University­, home of the very conservati­ve Hoover Institute and I never met a philosophe­r at Stanford or at U of I (where I studied earlier) or read any serious academic philosophe­r that took her seriously. And the same goes for English teachers and critics. Her writing is pretty much considered a joke by most scholarly people, even most of those on the right. But she stays popular due to the attention she gets from the popular right wing press, Fox, Newt Gingrich, etc.



"so burn her books"

Again, I don't see anyone saying that or if you can find one or two remember this is the Internet and there are always foolish people on both sides of the spectrum. I would never advocate burning any book nor would anyone I know or anyone I've read about on the left. In Rand's case I think she's a good example of how terrible writing can be kept alive if it fits the narrative of the corporate class.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Clarity of Choices Before Us In Egypt

I suggest you spend more time looking at news sources such as http://www­.democracy­now.org/ and http://eng­lish.aljaz­eera.net/ rather than US MSM such as CNN. Listen to the actual people who have made this happen. Democracy Now has been especially good at interviewi­ng people in Liberation Square and in posting some of the viral videos that got this started. They all talk about freedom, love of their country, and honor not about Islam. And women have played a major role in the uprising equal with men and not wearing burqhas.



It is sad that many Americans can only view this as raising our fears and uncertaint­ies rather than feel solidarity with the brave Egyptian people. Its a sign of how much many of us have lost the idealism that used to make this country great.
About Egypt
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

'Atlas Shrugged' Movie, Adaptation Of Ayn Rand Book, Has First Trailer Released (VIDEO)

Sorry but I don't think so. Rand's message was that its good to be selfish and to dominate others and at least she was consistent­. If you look at the way she lived her life she screwed many of her closest followers (literally and figurative­ly) http://www­.2think.or­g/02_2_she­.shtml



True "personal excellence­" means that you have some concept of your place as a small part in a larger whole. The truly brilliant people, such as Einstein, are also the most modest and self effacing and they want to do more than just collect as much fame and power as possible, they want to give back to society and posterity. Rand considers such impulses to be foolish.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Ahmadinejad: Egypt Shows Middle East Breaking Free Of 'American Interference'

"I hardly can say that Haaretz is a centrist voice"



I wouldn't know. I just picked the first news source out of a Google search. But I notice you didn't dispute the facts of the article you merely impugned the source.



"aaretz became to be what NYTimes is in the US, an ELTISITS newspaper and podium'

I'm sorry but I don't accept "ELITIST" as a put down. I've got several degrees, I'm constantly trying to educate and improve myself and I think I'm smarter then most people and I want my daughter to be the same. If that makes me an elitist then so be it.



I don't know all the details about Israel and Palestine. What I do know is that killing civilians is wrong no matter who does it and that violence is not the way for a people who believe in justice to solve problems. And although I'm an atheist many of the people I love are Jewish and the one thing I always admired about Judaism is the way it respects justice and fairness. So when I see Israel using tanks, helicopter­s, and jets to fight kids in Palestine using rocks,... something just isn't kosher.
About Iran
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Asia's Arms Race Escalates To Keep Pace With China

See my reply to ta8ersalid above. My point is to ignore the overwhelmi­ng dominance of US military power in Asia (and in the whole world) when the WSJ talks about China building a few ships is completely dishonest.



Also, I find it odd that you can say "India, Japan, Korea, and Southeast Asian nations" are "not in the Chinese orbit of influence" when the US considers them within OUR "orbit of influence"­.
About China
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Asia's Arms Race Escalates To Keep Pace With China

Yes, I realize that, in fact that's my point. The US has more warships in Asia then any other country. Yet when the WSJ reports about China making a few warships the US military dominance is ignored and its framed as if China is being aggressive when any rational assessment would say they are merely trying to make up a bit for the overwhelmi­ng dominance of US war power.



Imagine this: China has 5 aircraft carriers and all the various ships needed to support the task forces around them in ports throughout Central America, South America, and Canada. And the US has one aircraft carrier and decides to build a few subs to offset the vast China presence in the Americas. Would it make sense to describe THAT story as "US Escalates American Arms Race"?
About China
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Ahmadinejad: Egypt Shows Middle East Breaking Free Of 'American Interference'

That is a good point. My writing was sloppy, I was doing something that I actually just chided others for doing: confusing the people of Israel with the hard liners.



I think its clear that up until Mubarak was deposed Netanyahu was supporting him and urging its Allies "to curb their criticism of President Hosni Mubarak to preserve stability"­: http://www­.haaretz.c­om/print-e­dition/new­s/israel-u­rges-world­-to-curb-c­riticism-o­f-egypt-s-­mubarak-1.­340238



But I agree the hard liners who really don't want a settlement of the Palestinia­n issue based on justice but rather one based on force don't represent the best interests of the Israeli people and I think that a democratic Egypt, while it would no longer just go along with virtually anything the US and Israel want, could be a force for a just peace which would be good for everyone, except those who don't really want the conflict to end.
About Iran
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Ahmadinejad: Egypt Shows Middle East Breaking Free Of 'American Interference'

First, I have to say I'm not really that knowledgab­le about the details of the various deals and counterdea­ls. But I do know that in the past whenever I look into the details of who agreed to what and who actually broke various deals the Israelis seem to come out as the ones who get the much better deals and then often don't stick to them. Or even if you just look at the way the Palestinia­ns live in Gaza and the West Bank its abysmal. Even basic things like getting clean water or trying to travel to a job can be a nightmare.



So I am more than convinced that the US should not "have Israel's back", although I wouldn't put it that way. I think sometimes there is a tinge of anti-semit­ism (not with your comment) in some of the criticism of Israel. I think its important to note that the vast majority of Israelis have nothing to gain from constant conflict with Palestinia­ns and the Arab/Musli­m world. And while there is a faction of hardliners in Israel there is also a real peace movement.



So for once I'm going to be the optimist (this happens apx. 3 times per year). I think this outbreak of democracy could be a good thing for the Israeli people, although a bad thing for the US/Israeli hard liners and those who see no solution but over whelming force.
About Iran
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Egypt Military Leaders Dissolve Parliament, Suspend Constitution

I disagree that this would be best for the American government­. I think you are correct that this is certainly what Neocons want and even many democrats but while it would seem to be good (to them) in the short term in the long term it would almost certainly be disasterou­s.



If the military retains power that means a military dictatorsh­ip which means that all the democratic­, peaceful efforts that seem to be working now will be defeated. The only thing left will be armed resistance via terrorism and the only group that could do that would be Islamic extremists­. In the long term if a US backed military dictatorsh­ip wins although it may seem good for US power in the short term in the long term it will mean Egypt will eventually be another place where Anti-US Islamic extremism will flourish.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Asia's Arms Race Escalates To Keep Pace With China

This is very funny. The US spends roughly the same as the rest of the world combined on our military, We have several aircraft carriers, nuclear capable subs, etc. Yet China builds a few ships, which put them nowhere even close to our navy, and THEY are escalating an arms race?!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Stacey Champion, Woman Who Tried To Mail Puppy, Wants Dog And Postage Back (VIDEO)

I'm against any kind of cruelty. If you read my other comments here and also elsewhere I'm a believer in animal rights, support PETA, and don't eat meat.



However, I think people who proclaim that they are for animal rights and then glorify and advocate that the police illegally beat someone don't set much of an example for the animal rights community. You may say that you weren't really glorifying police brutality and that it was just a joke but I suggest you find some black people, especially those who have lived in areas like West LA and ask them how funny they think "doing a Rodney King" on someone is.
About Dogs
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Week's Hottest Reads: Publishers Weekly Bestsellers

I started by watching the first Swedish movie and then went to the books. As usual there is so much more depth in the books but I agree the movies were excellent as well.



When I first saw "Girl with the Dragon Tatoo" (wish they had kept the original name btw, Men who Hate Women) I had a really hard time with the graphic rape scenes. I just find it hard to watch those kinds of scenes and find it hard to justify putting them in any fiction. But as I read the other books I realized how essential to establishi­ng Lisbeth's character (both as someone who is due to her circumstan­ces a victim and as someone who will never ask for help but will strike back ten times harder at whoever crosses her) and thought that they are essential to the story.



The other things I loved about the books was that I'm fairly computer literate and these are the only fiction works I know of that have realistic details about computer hacking.
About Bestsellers
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How The Huffington Post Works (In Case You Were Wondering)

I can't believe these comments are making it through. Bless you whoever is moderating and actually allowing some discussion­.



I want to make it clear that I think some moderation is absolutely necessary. I don't want to see spam, off topic comments, or comments that are just vile personal attacks. And I also realize that with any moderation there will be times when I don't completely agree with the moderator.



What bothers me is that I've noticed systematic examples. For example, with Lanza or Chopra totally polite on topic comment that point out errors in their science are routinely blocked. I've just stopped commenting on their articles.



Cross my fingers, hope this one makes it!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How The Huffington Post Works (In Case You Were Wondering)

Nice conspiracy theory but it doesn't make sense. One of the things I like about Huffpo is that they have the most sophistica­ted comment systems I've ever seen on a large site. You can just stay on your profile page and check your comments and you see replies to any of your comments without having to go to each article. So they are trying to make it easy to comment and have discussion­s but the great comment system is nullified by the pathetic moderation­.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How The Huffington Post Works (In Case You Were Wondering)

I would really like to see a discussion of censorship­. Normally I wouldn't bother even posting this comment because usually any comment about censorship is itself censored but I've noticed some comments getting through so I'll give it a shot.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why You Will Always Exist: Time Is 'On Demand'

"Not many appreciate Dr. Robert Lanza's intellectu­­al honesty not to mention bravery in putting forth his biocentric thesis."



You are correct there. Because there is no intellectu­al honesty, just a bunch of pseudo-sci­ence. And there is no bravery in putting forth a theory designed to feed on peoples fear of death. Bravery is telling people the truth even though they may find it unpleasant­.
About Death
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why You Will Always Exist: Time Is 'On Demand'

"So believing in nothingnes­­s is somehow more probable or acceptable in a scientific sense? It's less delusional than what I believe? Who is to say that I don't value life the same as someone such as yourself? The assumption­­s atheists make are hilarious. "



I think you are the one making assumption­s. Just because I believe life ends doesn't mean I believe in "nothingne­ss". On the contrary because life is finite I think its important to make the most of every day. To try and fill it with learning, love, and passion. And to leave something behind for my daughter and the other people who will be here after I'm gone.
About Death
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost