Maybe we're not getting the most out of them because most of them spend most of their time doing stupid, repetitive tasks that numb their minds and could be better and more efficiently performed by machines with some measure of artificial intelligence...
Oh yes the answer to your question is, based on my informal survey of "In Soviet Russia" jokes here and at http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?InSovietRussia, the object can either be YOU or the subject of the sentence (if that was not "you").
"In SR, old robots talk to YOU!" "In SR, robots talk to/about old people" "In SR, the children think of somebody" "In SR, the children think of YOU!" etc.
But if I said it without malicious intent, as a joke, and if no one believed me anyway (without further evidence), so no one unsubscribed and new subscriptions did not drop as a result of the statement, it shouldn't be actionable.
According to the article linked from that story, "computer scientists at UCLA linked two bulky computers using a 15-foot gray cable, testing a new way to exchange data over networks" and "Stephen Crocker and Vinton Cerf were among the graduate students who joined UCLA professor Len Kleinrock in an engineering lab on September 2, 1969, as bits of meaningless test data flowed silently between the two computers."
The CBC article linked from the present story: "After the hardware was put in place, researchers at UCLA attempted on Oct. 29, 1969, to log in to a computer at the Stanford Research Institute in Menlo Park, Calif."
So, the first "birthday" was meaningless bits of test data between two computers in the same room, this "birthday" is the first connection (and attempt at a meaningful natural language exchange) between computers in geographically separate locations.
From a philisophical standpoint, being face-to-face is really just light, sound, and feelings being transmitted to and interpreted by your brain
Please to include a filter on the "feelings" in the vr software, for those of us for whom the "feelings" transmission has been overwhelmingly negative in nature.
IF YOU RESPECTED THE (UNSPOKEN) RULES YOU WERE FINE!
This reminds me of the crack game in the US. If you shut up and did what you were supposed to (hustle, make moves, talk trash, pretend to be a big tough guy threatening violence all the time, ripping people off, committing crimes, pulling bait-and-switch moves, spending your earnings with the hos...), everything's cool and you get to smoke good crack. But if (like myself) you refused to play their game, you got served the bullshit cut with glue, ink, wax, rat poison, drano, whatever...
Anyways it doesn't have to be that way. Legalize the shit, regulate it, sell it in stores like beer, and you take most of that "unwritten" shit out of it.
The problem is, all that game with unwritten rules ends up taking up resources that might otherwise be more productively spent.
I think we should all go on welfare or social security disability (like Rich Wallace) and work on the AI to replace everyone else's jobs too...then we'd all be in the same boat and the government would figure out that the economy is really 90% psychology and we could actually give everyone the basic resources needed for a comfortable living standard. Then people would work on what they want to work on, and they would be more productive at it, and everything would be better.
So your program that figured out their recognition sequence would score, on average, higher than their programs - since your program would have no slaves, it would simply take advantage of their slaves. So you would win...
Deano's in Seattle (21st and E. Madison) openly deals drugs inside and outside the club. The cops know about it, the neighbors know about it, everyone knows it. But they can't be shut down. People have tried to get their liquor license rescinded, but have failed every time. No one cares it seems.
What they should do is just legalize the damn shit. Keeping it illegal just funds the damn gangs that are in control of the street distribution.
wasn't your point that "the obscured system will be more secure"? ms word is obscured, but it's not more secure. i suppose you could argue that it's the macro language that's not secure but since that's included in the system...
interesting...something like philistinism but applied to religion instead of intellectual pursuits. paganism? from the definitions at dictionary.com, "not acknowledging" the gods would seem to allow for belief in them yet not worshiping them.
ok i'm just curious: does the heisenberg uncertainty principle apply to simulations? that is, if you start off a particle in a simulator, what prevents you from being able to determine both its position and velocity, since you're not actually observing the particle itself?
Slashdot Mirror
They were pretty much what we would call today a terrorist organisation - having a policy of violence to achieve their aim
Wait, how did they use violence again?
Um.
_ of_the_new_problem)
"Some other advantages of the proposed criterion may be shown up by specimen questions and answers. Thus:
Q: Please write me a sonnet on the subject of the Forth Bridge.
A: Count me out on this one. I never could write poetry."
- "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" (http://www.abelard.org/turpap/turpap.htm#critque
Maybe we're not getting the most out of them because most of them spend most of their time doing stupid, repetitive tasks that numb their minds and could be better and more efficiently performed by machines with some measure of artificial intelligence...
Oh yes the answer to your question is, based on my informal survey of "In Soviet Russia" jokes here and at http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?InSovietRussia, the object can either be YOU or the subject of the sentence (if that was not "you").
"In SR, old robots talk to YOU!"
"In SR, robots talk to/about old people"
"In SR, the children think of somebody"
"In SR, the children think of YOU!"
etc.
Yes, I'm actually coding an "In Soviet Russia" bot and I've run into this question.
Soon I will have internet access from my laptop and will be able to put in online...
But if I said it without malicious intent, as a joke, and if no one believed me anyway (without further evidence), so no one unsubscribed and new subscriptions did not drop as a result of the statement, it shouldn't be actionable.
But is it real?
According to the article linked from that story, "computer scientists at UCLA linked two bulky computers using a 15-foot gray cable, testing a new way to exchange data over networks" and "Stephen Crocker and Vinton Cerf were among the graduate students who joined UCLA professor Len Kleinrock in an engineering lab on September 2, 1969, as bits of meaningless test data flowed silently between the two computers."
The CBC article linked from the present story:
"After the hardware was put in place, researchers at UCLA attempted on Oct. 29, 1969, to log in to a computer at the Stanford Research Institute in Menlo Park, Calif."
So, the first "birthday" was meaningless bits of test data between two computers in the same room, this "birthday" is the first connection (and attempt at a meaningful natural language exchange) between computers in geographically separate locations.
Maybe no nurse wants to go. Also, if it caught on, the price of the tech would likely come down.
From a philisophical standpoint, being face-to-face is really just light, sound, and feelings being transmitted to and interpreted by your brain
Please to include a filter on the "feelings" in the vr software, for those of us for whom the "feelings" transmission has been overwhelmingly negative in nature.
So put in a randomizer, used at random points...
It won't create brand new things, but if you train it on that text it might help you create things in the same genre...
IF YOU RESPECTED THE (UNSPOKEN) RULES YOU WERE FINE!
This reminds me of the crack game in the US. If you shut up and did what you were supposed to (hustle, make moves, talk trash, pretend to be a big tough guy threatening violence all the time, ripping people off, committing crimes, pulling bait-and-switch moves, spending your earnings with the hos...), everything's cool and you get to smoke good crack. But if (like myself) you refused to play their game, you got served the bullshit cut with glue, ink, wax, rat poison, drano, whatever...
Anyways it doesn't have to be that way. Legalize the shit, regulate it, sell it in stores like beer, and you take most of that "unwritten" shit out of it.
The problem is, all that game with unwritten rules ends up taking up resources that might otherwise be more productively spent.
I think we should all go on welfare or social security disability (like Rich Wallace) and work on the AI to replace everyone else's jobs too...then we'd all be in the same boat and the government would figure out that the economy is really 90% psychology and we could actually give everyone the basic resources needed for a comfortable living standard. Then people would work on what they want to work on, and they would be more productive at it, and everything would be better.
So your program that figured out their recognition sequence would score, on average, higher than their programs - since your program would have no slaves, it would simply take advantage of their slaves. So you would win...
I've seen a class used purely to declare a bunch of constants used throughout the application...what's a better way? trying to learn here...
I haven't seen mod points since the first slashdot troll post investigation...(according to this, I've been banned from moderating for life. sucks to be me!
that is so cool! sex is primitive, and kind of disgusting.
Deano's in Seattle (21st and E. Madison) openly deals drugs inside and outside the club. The cops know about it, the neighbors know about it, everyone knows it. But they can't be shut down. People have tried to get their liquor license rescinded, but have failed every time. No one cares it seems.
What they should do is just legalize the damn shit. Keeping it illegal just funds the damn gangs that are in control of the street distribution.
wasn't your point that "the obscured system will be more secure"? ms word is obscured, but it's not more secure. i suppose you could argue that it's the macro language that's not secure but since that's included in the system...
And fuzzy logic is a tool to specify just how much anything is of anything...
Didn't they come up with a few viruses for it though?
until we get virtual sex!
interesting...something like philistinism but applied to religion instead of intellectual pursuits. paganism? from the definitions at dictionary.com, "not acknowledging" the gods would seem to allow for belief in them yet not worshiping them.
ok i'm just curious: does the heisenberg uncertainty principle apply to simulations? that is, if you start off a particle in a simulator, what prevents you from being able to determine both its position and velocity, since you're not actually observing the particle itself?