Weekend open thread
I propose to consider the question, “Can machines think?” This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms “machine” and “think.” The definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous, If the meaning of the words “machine” and “think” are to be found by examining how they are commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, “Can machines think?” is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.
Happy 100th birthday, Alan Turing.
How will you prove you can think this weekend?
June 23, 2012 - 6:02 AM
Pelosi is unreal!
“I think [Obama] should [declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional]…” Pelosi said Wednesday.
Pelosi thinks Obama should not negotiate with the House Republicans about raising the debt ceiling and declare it unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment which says “The validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned”.
Read more: http://times247.com/articles/pelosi-obama-should-unilaterally-eliminate-the-debt-ceiling#ixzz1ycQw1rxD
The Dems want unlimited spending ad infinitum!
She also believes the GOP is trying to keep AG Holder from protecting minority voter rights by tieing him up with Fast and Furious. She claims the GOP secretly is planning to steal the Nov. election by blocking the minority vote.
Unbelievable!
In aprox the last two months oil prices have dropped 27%, with a coresponding drop in gas prices. The reason is reduced demand (not constant) for oil as the global economy stalls.
Proof positive of the supply/demand dynamic on price, and it’s rapidity.
Greater supply, relative to demand will decrease price over whatever it would otherwise be.
#1 Along with her other absurdities, the idea that the president & Congress decide what’s Constitutional. (This POV is why we are in the various messes we are in).
Pelosi’s comments regarding Holder/F&F/Voter suppression only prove how “out to lunch” the leadership of the left is. The reason Holder/F&F are in the news is because Holder has made serious misstatements before congress and failed to provide documents and answers as to who ordered/authorized F&F in the first place. He (Holder) did this all by himself- the GOP didn’t help him. This sad occurrence could have been behind the nation 6 months ago and the Terry family some closure.
But saving face and an election are more important.
John R, to be fair, Bush and the Republican controlled congress had no problem spending money, that was a point made by McCain during the 2008 campaign.
Jim Lucas, that have been a problem for decades. Remember the “secret” wire-tapping programs that had a lot of folks in an uproar? I was among those peeved about it.
The reduced demand for oil is due to the global economic slow down, especially in manufacturing world wide.
The TP/GOP wants unlimited fighting “ad infinitum”, John R. Pelosi has a valid point IMO. This dog and pony show that lowered our credit rating last time is not a shining moment in American governance and we damn sure do not need to repeat it. The cuts and revenue additions have not made not raising the debt ceiling possible and will not do so in time to avoid the fight. You can try to blame ALL of that on the Dems, but that dog won’t hunt. It ain’t so.
Frankly, given the political mentality in this nation, it is all quite believable. And quite sad. You do not have the leaders we lack and that remains the bottom line. We either learn to work together or we will all fail together. Why is that not obvious to you?
One dimensional is always boring and small, but do keep it up.
regularly recurrent; continual; persistent = CONSTANT
continually occurring or recurring: regular = CONSTANT
#8 Still flossing? Give it up. That horse is dead, ground up, fed to my dog (I hope you like him….don’t be a bigot), digested, excreted, sunk into the ground, feeding worms……catching fish….
But OK. Your court. Up to you. Please….explain to us how the demand for oil is constant.
Two articles from Business Insider worth reviewing.
Some of the take home points, social programs have become a huge part of our economic system while the military, although still big have been shrinking. Also shrinking are government payrolls.
Conclusions, raise taxes and cut spending but in a well thought out way.
http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6
Corporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High, Wages Just Hit An All-Time Low
http://www.businessinsider.com/politics-economics-facts-charts-2012-6
Make sure you visit the slide show at this link.
Moody’s Investors Service lowered the credit ratings of 15 of the world’s biggest banks, including US banks: Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. This shows Moody’s concern over their exposure in global financial markets.
“[The banks] have significant exposure to the volatility and risk of outsized losses inherent to capital markets activities…” Moody’s global banking managing director Greg Bauer said last week.
The point is that this Moody’s downgrade clearly shows the failure of Dodd-Frank pushed through by Obama and the Dems 2 years ago which was supposed to make the financial institutions stronger. It has had just the opposite effect.
The 2300 pages of regulations in the Dodd-Frank legislation have only served to restrain banks from raising capital and improving liquidity and consequently weakened the financial sector.
The Obama and the Dems regulatory binge including Dodd-Frank is a drag on economic growth.
For those interested, links regarding my posting @ #11 above can be found at:
Fhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/22/moodys-sees-big-banks-risks-outsized-losses/?page=1
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304765304577482711212837808.html?mod=ITP_opinion_2
John R… With all due respect you have very little understanding of the global banking world.
The reason the major banks received their down grades is because they don’t have enough capital in reserve to offset potential losses of their investment and trading operations. Had the republicans not rammed the repeal of Glass Stegall down our throats, retail banking would be just fine and able to loan money.
#1, #8, #9 Vladimir & Estragon patiently await.
#8 Ms. Saunders, I try….I try.
I get by with a little help from my (little blue) friends.
And they’ll laugh at my mighty sword, laugh at my mighty sword, why must everyone, laugh at my mighty sword?
With all due apologies to Beckett, The Beatles & the incomparable Randy Newman.
Remember the various discussions reference “personal freedoms” and the (federal) government? Remember the standard obfuscation of those asking; what infringements? To the list(s) that were provided…..let’s talk about cigars.
Yes, I hear the pious chortle of the “progressives”……cigars? Yes, cigars.
Obama & his FDA wish to take away (my!) cigars. Their rationale? Young people smoking cigars. Their tool? The “interstate commerce clause” of the Constitution. (Sound familiar?).
Now, when’s the last time “you” saw some kid smoking a cigar? When’s the last time you know of, or heard of, heard of, heard of….some kid ordering cigars?
Cigars represent less than one tenth of one per cent of the tobacco industry. This (cigars) industry employs 90,000 plus people, almost all small businesses.
Dog in this fight? Sure. I eat less & drink less & I enjoy the hell out of them. I smoke in my own home & my own car. To Obama & the FDA, kiss my butts.
#15 contiued….and, by the way, is it even remotely possible that the federal government has greater concerns reference our youth, and better ways to spend money we don’t have, than saving us from cigars?
Ms. Saunders, in case I played too “clever” for my own good, let me be more succinct….when will you explain your theory of non-relativity?
The constant demand for oil and the lack of supply/demand relationship to price?
#13 Will,
“With all due respect you have very little understanding of the global banking world.”
Interesting! You have more knowledge than the editors of the WSJ!
Maybe you could share your sources with the rest of us. Or is that just your personal opinion? I don’t claim to be an expert, I just pass along what I read for those interested.
Was losing this argument once not enough for you Jim Lucas?
The demand for oil is “regularly recurrent; continual; persistent, continually occurring or recurring: regular”, ergo it can be called CONSTANT. The word constant has more than one meaning. When you write a dictionary, you may change that truth as you see fit. Until then, constant demand is not false or wrong. The world demands oil regularly, continually, and with the constancy that drives the market. There is no day that oil is not in supply or demand. It may fluctuate, it may ebb more to one country and flow more to another, it may ship more or less one day/month than the next but it never has stopped and it will not do so. Demand for oil is constant. Only in the convoluted world of nit-picking bloggers who deem themselves a dictionary is that even challenged much less taken seriously.
John R, honesty precludes even the WSJ from pretending that Dodd-Frank ended up with any teeth or control. The TP/GOP saw to that. Sadly, it seems the WSJ did not care about any truth and you want to join them.
Again John R….
With all due respect, The Wall Street Journal lost its standing as a well respected financial reporting paper when it was acquired by Rupert Murdoch.
It is now used as a whipping rod against anything that doesn’t march lockstep with Republicans despite whether what they are espousing is right or wrong.
As far as my knowledge against the editors of the WSJ, frankly I’d put my knowledge up against theirs any day of the week…after all, if they were indeed that smart, they ostensibly would be out in the real world doing what they talk about. I am.
With regard to Moody’s down grades…Frankly I would be more worried about taking anything that any of the ratings agencies said seriously since they are the ones who turned a blind eye to the CDS’s that were packaged and sold as triple A rated when in fact they were little more than junk status. They are the ones who assigned the bogus ratings.
#19 Originally your argument seemed to be that “constant” meant continually rising. As absurd as this is, by definition & common sense…it still appears to be your argument even as oil demand is demonstrably decreasing. Wow.
#19 …and, please remember, the reason that I (and several others) questioned your “constant” theme, is because you used it to attempt to support your claim that supply does not affect price. You can dodge & pretend to take the high road all you wish….it will not change the obvious misconceptions you continue to express. IMO, in a misplaced attempt to use bogus theory to support political dogma.
You’re entitled to your opinion. Not your own set of facts and terminology.
The TP/GOP saw to it that Dodd-Frank had no “teeth or control”….
Given the fact that the law was passed and signed into law July of 2010, when dems had solid control/majorities in both houses of congress and the whitehouse, how can that be explained?
I agree Will, the rating agencies are so late to the game as to be laughable. They threw their credibility away as did the WSJ in many respects.
For anyone to speak of Dodd-Frank in serious terms when they know it was gutted, it is toothless and it is far from fixing anything that was the most egregious is just a bridge into the abyss and not crack economic discussion. Oh wait, maybe it is a kind of “crack” economic discussion come to think of it, but not the good kind.
#25 BUD, why is it that Repubs or right wingers like you continue to pretend that even the minority of Repubs in the Senate is enough to change or stop any legislation simply by threatening to filibuster? Which they do CONSTANTLY. We ALL know that little fact, so what good is it for you to pretend that the Dems really had complete control of anything? It’s a lie.
Sandi and Will, What business media sources do you consider credible?
The NYT is going broke! The WSJ is the most successful national newspaper in the US today which is a vote of confidence.
The editorial policy at the WSJ is exactly the same now as it was before Murdock bought it several years ago.
In fact, I have been reading the WSJ daily for over 30 years and there has been no basic change in editorial policy. The news section of the WSJ is considered left of center.
Gdad…hate to break it to you but Dodd-Frank(the bill that Sandi said the TP/GOP took the teeth out of but can’t explain how or when)was not filibustered by the GOP. Indeed 3 republicans crossed over and voted with 58 democrats to pass the bill (Brown, Snowe and Collins).
#28 Going broke makes a newspaper not credible? Wow, who knew?? Guess that means the Washington Times is extremely not credible, eh, John R?
John R…
I can’t speak for Sandi; however, I can say that given Murdoch’s rather dubious reputation as to the methods his underlings go about gathering news and his apparent tacit approval of such methods, I would be highly suspect of any organization he owns.
I’ve never really viewed the NYT’s as a financial reporting document. If I really want to know something about a publicly traded company, I pull their financials and perform my own analysis.
Most journalists, whether from the left or the right will only include enought salacious details to augment their own points of view.
I think it is up to the individual to do the research and formulate an educated opinion without relying on those that have more politically oriented motivations.
Before the WSJ was purchased by Murdoch, I too read it and enjoyed it…but now it’s just another rag.
#29 So you’re claiming that the bill passed exactly as the Dems wanted with no changes forced by threats of filibusters, BUD?
American Idol, Brittney Spears and Pornography are pretty popular in this nation now too John R. Nothing about being popular or paid for makes you “credible”. The WSJ has carried water for business and industry since its inception, especially on the editorial pages (which is what you reference), and for the past few years for the TP/GOP as well. They believe what is good for business is good for all. It simply is the truth on their editorial pages. Much like the RTEB that you all so thoroughly lambaste at every occasion or no occasion at all has a progressive POV, the WSJ has a conservative POV. Their bias is known and accepted and to say otherwise defies credibility on your end.
If you want to know where I get my business news, it is NOT from editorial pages. Worse yet from unattributed editorials.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/
http://www.reuters.com/
And I also check out what Stiglitz, Baker, Krugman, Kimel, Ritholtz and Bartlett have on their blogs as all stay pretty current on the business news. Yes, these are “editorials” of a sort, but they are known economists not just an editorial board. I don’t like it when the RTEB puts out a blanket opinion and I do not like it when the WSJ, HuffPo, NYT or WaPo does it either.
Nothing wrong with reading or even citing an editorial, but do not expect credibility to be granted solely due to the publication that runs it.
BUD, maybe you have missed the fight but it is a fact that the TP/GOP has fought Dodd-Frank every step of the way. The year of delay made a big target on its back. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. introduced a bill that would “force regulators to determine the economic impact of proposed rules”. “The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down a SEC rule that would have given shareholders more power to nominate directors to the boards of publicly traded companies”.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/09/29/The-Push-to-Pull-the-Teeth-out-of-Dodd-Frank.aspx#page1
“Since Dodd Frank was enacted a year ago, Wall Street has spent as much – if not more – on lobbyists and political payoffs designed to stop the law’s implementation than it did trying to kill off the law in the first place. The six largest banks spent $29.4 million on lobbying last year, according to firm disclosures — record spending for the group. This year they’re on track to break last year’s record.”
http://www.laprogressive.com/dodd-frank-rejection/
John R, you DO accept the difference between editorials and news don’t you? Why do you constantly fuss about the RTEB voicing their progressive opinion and love the WSJ for their conservative opinion? DO you not see the problem there? If one opinion is credible so is the other.