Sometimes it's more frustrating talking to a human being though. And why should I have to tell my bank balance, or ss number, or date of birth, or whatever to a real person.
What we need is more natural automated systems. Which means more AI research...
Logic? Common sense? What does this have to do with anything? Humans cost a lot more $$ than a phone system. Unfortunately that seems to be the bottom line. In corporate America, the best solution often is the worst because it is the most expensive.
Is it right that humans should have to work in call centers though?
Re:The word is treason
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
Maybe it will enter your mind, or the mind of another reader. Then maybe the next time you or the other reader hears this point, it will take a little bit more hold. Then one day maybe a really cool person will come across the idea, and they will agree with it. Then other people who look up to this really cool person will start believing it and repeating it. Then Bush will see in his polls that this point of view is gaining popularity, and bingo! it enters his mind...
Well, the post to which I was replying used the phrase in the sense I used it I believe. I was using his terminology. Please substitute "believe external appearance is more important than content" for "judge a book by its cover" in my post.
I am not sure of the intent of your post. Are you merely providing information? Or are you implying that because the term originated to describe something other than what it is commonly thought to mean, what I thought it meant is not a valid point?
One day we'll have converters/translators to dynamically customize the external form (spelling, layout, font, volume, accent, whatever...) of each message for each recipient.
Also, maybe Prince doesn't care whether you understand his message or not. Maybe he's talking to his fans, who are used to that spelling shit.
Besides, boiling the language down to some simplified form removes connotations and such
The spelling would be irrelevant if you listened to it instead of reading it. Or if you're referring to hearing a word, spelling it out in your mind, then making some etymological connection based on the (non-phonetic) spelling, well, I think that's an acceptable loss for the gain in simplicity.
I don't think the technology counts until it becomes part of our physical constitution. After all, we are discussing biological evolution, not cultural evolution....aren't we?:)
Since the technology to modify our own "germ line" comes out of written memes, they seem to be linked
evolution fills niches and takes advantage of loopholes wherever it can find them. Of course it'll lose when you change the rules of the game!
Species that adapt to changing rules survive. Being able to adapt to changing rules requires that you carry along extra genes that may not be useful right now but could help you in different environments.
No, I think the fitness test is at fault. It could have tested the evolved circuit in different environments or in a shielded environment, for example.
I see us heading towards a future where biology provides us with a "blank slate" upon which we can imprint whatever memes we want. Already we have the ability to overcome biological heritage through education...this will become easier. Or not...
I don't think communism requires control of the media. Does communism as described by Marx include censorship?
The way it should work is, if you want to listen to a more talented musician than the Chairman's daughter, you can, without having to pay more money. Why do you want to pay more money? Plenty of talented jazz musicians in this country choose to play their music for less money than pop musicians.
Re:The word is treason
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
Prior to 9/11, there were probably a large number of Americans who were completely oblivious to the fact that numerous people, inside and outside the country, have a violent hatred of the citizens and/or the government for a variety of reasons.
What are the reasons? That is the level at which we should be dealing with terrorism.
A War on Terrorism will not likely change those reasons. We may violently suppress terrorism for a period, but until the underlying causes are addressed, terrorism will recur.
the media shouldn't be allowed to question the government in times of war
Recently Runsfeld (I believe) was quoted as saying that "unanimity in thought does not always promote correctness" or something (in reference to our allies not supporting military action against Iraq).
Why do we not use this quote when other government officials say that any criticism of the government is wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes it's more frustrating talking to a human being though. And why should I have to tell my bank balance, or ss number, or date of birth, or whatever to a real person.
What we need is more natural automated systems. Which means more AI research...
Invest in AI chatbot research to make the automated systems more natural and human-like.
Logic? Common sense? What does this have to do with anything? Humans cost a lot more $$ than a phone system. Unfortunately that seems to be the bottom line. In corporate America, the best solution often is the worst because it is the most expensive.
Is it right that humans should have to work in call centers though?
Yeah, this human would rather deal with an automated system. Preferably a natural-language one.
In Praise of Idleness
Maybe it will enter your mind, or the mind of another reader. Then maybe the next time you or the other reader hears this point, it will take a little bit more hold. Then one day maybe a really cool person will come across the idea, and they will agree with it. Then other people who look up to this really cool person will start believing it and repeating it. Then Bush will see in his polls that this point of view is gaining popularity, and bingo! it enters his mind...
It's important to have dreams, heh.
Well, the post to which I was replying used the phrase in the sense I used it I believe. I was using his terminology. Please substitute "believe external appearance is more important than content" for "judge a book by its cover" in my post.
I am not sure of the intent of your post. Are you merely providing information? Or are you implying that because the term originated to describe something other than what it is commonly thought to mean, what I thought it meant is not a valid point?
It seems similar to the moot/academic nitpick.
One day we'll have converters/translators to dynamically customize the external form (spelling, layout, font, volume, accent, whatever...) of each message for each recipient.
Also, maybe Prince doesn't care whether you understand his message or not. Maybe he's talking to his fans, who are used to that spelling shit.
Besides, boiling the language down to some simplified form removes connotations and such
The spelling would be irrelevant if you listened to it instead of reading it. Or if you're referring to hearing a word, spelling it out in your mind, then making some etymological connection based on the (non-phonetic) spelling, well, I think that's an acceptable loss for the gain in simplicity.
Don't worry, maybe he's only directing the message at those he thinks count (obviously not you).
Who is going to be remembered one hundred years from now? Prince? Or Dijkstra. I sure hope it is Dijkstra.
It'll be Prince for his revolutionary contributions to English spelling.
If I didn't already know about Prince, I would have been very disinclined to read his entire commentary.
So you choose to judge a book by its cover, even though you know it's unfair?
This "shorthand" makes the author look either stupid or lazy (or both) and does nothing to help deliver the intended message.
Another ad hominem attack...if you heard it read, would it make it better?
Allowing the flamebait mod to stand exactly proves his point.
which means that the bacteria have been exposed to a level of the antibiotic that hasn't killed 100% of the little nasties
So maybe evolutionary algorithms can be improved by applying a fitness test, then backing off on it, then reapplying it...
But why help it along?
by helping it along, you just spread ignorance.
Personally it doesn't bother me because I understand both forms. I think the two spellings are what descriptive linguists call "in free variation".
Simulators would be great, they would allow us to test out scenarios non-destructively (try out different economic strategies, for example).
I don't think the technology counts until it becomes part of our physical constitution. After all, we are discussing biological evolution, not cultural evolution. ...aren't we? :)
Since the technology to modify our own "germ line" comes out of written memes, they seem to be linked
evolution fills niches and takes advantage of loopholes wherever it can find them. Of course it'll lose when you change the rules of the game!
Species that adapt to changing rules survive. Being able to adapt to changing rules requires that you carry along extra genes that may not be useful right now but could help you in different environments.
No, I think the fitness test is at fault. It could have tested the evolved circuit in different environments or in a shielded environment, for example.
the programs would only run on the machine on which they evolved
This should be fixable by creating better fitness tests. Evaluate the fitness of each trial in different environments, for example.
I see us heading towards a future where biology provides us with a "blank slate" upon which we can imprint whatever memes we want. Already we have the ability to overcome biological heritage through education...this will become easier. Or not...
I don't think communism requires control of the media. Does communism as described by Marx include censorship?
The way it should work is, if you want to listen to a more talented musician than the Chairman's daughter, you can, without having to pay more money. Why do you want to pay more money? Plenty of talented jazz musicians in this country choose to play their music for less money than pop musicians.
Prior to 9/11, there were probably a large number of Americans who were completely oblivious to the fact that numerous people, inside and outside the country, have a violent hatred of the citizens and/or the government for a variety of reasons.
What are the reasons? That is the level at which we should be dealing with terrorism.
A War on Terrorism will not likely change those reasons. We may violently suppress terrorism for a period, but until the underlying causes are addressed, terrorism will recur.
the media shouldn't be allowed to question the government in times of war
Recently Runsfeld (I believe) was quoted as saying that "unanimity in thought does not always promote correctness" or something (in reference to our allies not supporting military action against Iraq).
Why do we not use this quote when other government officials say that any criticism of the government is wrong?