The CYC project may not yet have come up with the right mechanism to turn their database into a conscious, self aware entity, but the information and semantic relationships they have captured in the process is an essential tool, and must surely remain so, for anybody attempting to develop anything similar. After all, you either have to load the information into the software before power-on, or else it is going to take several years for the information to be captured in the "traditional" way. And who can wait that long just to see how one particular experiment will turn out?
Well said. Though the spiteful anti-French sentiments mandated by the Party are, I believe, parroted only by the Proles. Most people here are faily well educated, surely, and above such jingoistic nonsense.
The correct thing to do, ergonomically, is to have a confirmation dialog (yes/no) popup whenever you select "close other tabs". This prevents data loss easily without having to throw away useful functionality. There was a very long thread on bugzilla about this, for a very long time it was getting the usual "wontfix" response from some arrogant dickhead developer who insisted he knew better than the rest of us. That's the same sort of mentality that causes bad government.
I concede the point though I can't see for the life of me why a Unix SA would want anything to do with an OS that has no command line. The very idea is enough to make me hyperventilate.
It works just fine. The software comes with templates for the most common home entertainment devices, plus you can define your own devices and it has "learning remote" functionality so you can program in any other remote codes you want. Dont forget this handheld has a good quality illuminated colour screen and has Wi-Fi and bluetooth built in. It's also cheaper doing this than buying a dedicated programmable LCD remote, at least it was last time I looked.
I loved Babylon 5 unreasonably, but I'm still convinced this movie will bomb because the things that made the series great are *gone*.
Another thing: other posts analyze why the series peaked at season three. I always wondered about that. The answer, it appears, is that Straczinsky was screwed around by Warner Bros and could never be sure if the series would continue as planned or be axed early. Way to go, Warner, there's nothing quite like shitting on your own doorstep is there? How ironic that the very worst thing that can happen to TV, is TV executives.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised since the very same dynamic operates in the movie industry. Just look at Highlander II (oops, sorry for reminding you...).
Lazenby was dropped only because he was a temperamental prima donna on the set. I guess he thought he was going to get to be the "big star" but he miscalculated; it was just too easy to replace him after only one movie, especially with Connery available again. The studio might possibly have put up with it if they'd known Connery was only going to come back for one more movie.
OHMSS is actually many Bond connoisseurs' favourite Bond flick, not least because of Lazenby's action hero performance (BTW before you get started on his acting skills, at least he tried. And nobody's handing out medals for method acting to Connery either. Dalton is another matter).
As to the Lazenby Bond's all-too-brief marriage: you must have forgotten - that's what happend in the film, because that's what happened in the Ian Fleming novel. Lazenby had nothing to do with that decision, he just played it like he was told.
Moore: I loved Moore as Bond, but that's because I really like the way it pokes fun at itself. As far as action goes, Moore doesn't add much. In fact he long ago owned up that he used a stuntman for *everything* - even running, because (he said) when he runs he looks like a duck. So thats why he doesnt look silly doing stunts: he isn't doing them at all.
Dalton is a very experienced, classically trained actor and a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company. I deeply regret his decision to bow out of Bond movies after only two films! You're completely right about his credibility as a total nutter. Loved it when he told M to shove it his licence and fled to catch Leitner's attackers. You never really saw Bond *angry* before that!
Brosnan just doesn't work for me at all. The guy has no charisma. With him in it, it's just like any other special effects- focussed action film. Ho hum.
Rumour has it that Ewan McGregor is being considered to take over. I have no idea what that will be like. Probably crap. He's not really Mr Screen Presence either.
I take the point about the identity of certain characters in the Abarahamic faiths. Likewise it seems the Islamic prophet Isa who was intended (by Mohammed) to represent Jesus, was misreported in the Koran owing, presumes, to a faulty knowledge of Christian and Jewish scripture on Mohammed's part.
Your reply prompted me to do some further reading - not least the thread that you linked to. This conversation spun off a whole series of searches which turned up (mixed in with a certain amount of hopeless drivel) a lot of serious theological analysis on both sides of the issue.
I was astounded in particular by historical accounts of the practice of dhimmitude, as documented by BAt Ye'or. It seems that Islamic scripture, - including even parts of the Koran - sets a precedent for the subjugation of non-Islamic populations, deprivation of their human rights, and ultimately genocide.
There are also parts of the Jewish Talmud which encourage the same kinds of treatment of gentiles, and even paedophilia (in ancient Jewish law, a girl of three years old can be wed).
Lets not forget also the atrocities that have been perpetuated in the name of Christianity, most notably during the Crusades and also the treatment of supposed heretics and apostates during the centuries of the Inquisition.
Frankly the message I take from these readings is that all organized religion is something to be reviled by all civilized people.
It's often been said that because the Muslim faith is some 600 years younger than Christianity that it is unfair to compare contemporary Islam with contemporary Christianity, that Islam now more closely resembles what Christendom was up to during the late middle ages - not long out of the crusades, with the whole of Europe under the dictat of the Papacy and the terror of the Inquisition. No doubt these institutions managed to find scriptural justification for their actions too.
However I think this argument is a dangerous diversion. Even if Islam does reform successfully at some point in the future, any of the three Abrahamic faiths has sufficient precedent in its scripture to justify the mistreatment of fellow human beings. And as social circumstances change, any of these three religions could just as easily undergo a fundamentalist revival at any time. Today for example Islam has its Hamas (and those scary guys who whack themselves on the head until they bleed - I forget what they call themselves); Judaism already has its Zionists; Christianity has its right wing fundamentalists.
If we ever allow one of these faiths to take control of a state even in its seemingly most benign form, we are therefore risking future inhumanity on a massive scale: torture, murder, war and genocide.
You know a well as I do that in any substantial body of holy writing support will be found (via a certain amount of logic chopping and twisting of words) for any proposition under the sun. Right wing Christian fundamentalists do exactly the same thing with the Christian Bible, using this technique in effect to turn Christianity into its exact opposite.
Different Muslim sects interpret this in different ways. It's unlikely that the Koran itself is evil, The evil adheres only to those branches of Islam that preach and practice such barbaric traditions.
Well, that part of history everybody knows. But I still thought it was fascinating that the Muslims acknowledge the Jews as God's chosen. That still hasn't been repudiated, not to my knowledge.
(It reminds me, for some reason, of an old science fiction novel - Robert Silverberg I think - where humans find they've been forsaken by God for an exaterrestrial race, and humanity declares war on God).
Sorry to interrupt, but this is barely even a theological issue - it's more like a historical one. Much as it pains me to admit it, GWB is perfectly right on this one.
Abraham's younger son Jacob, as the Bible says, had twelve sons (Asher, Benjamin, Dan, Gad, Issachar, Joseph, Judah, Levi, Naphtali, Reuben, Simeon and Zebulun) who were the founders of the twelve tribes of Israel. The Jews are supposed to be descended from Judah.
However Abraham's eldest son Ishmail is said to have fathered the Arab nations.
Whether you believe this as historical fact or not, what isn't in dispute is that the God of Abraham is worshipped as the one true God not only in the Christian Bible but also in both the Torah of the Jews and in the Koran of the Muslims.
What you need to understand that even the Jews and Muslims agree on this, and they surely wouldn't if there was any way out of it. However, its a matter of historical record as far as they are concerned.
It's well documented not only in the holy writings themselves but on theology sites all over the internet so you can check this out for yourself without even getting up.
The part that really gets me though is (and here I'm only reporting what I've been told by some Islamic students of the Koran, so don't blame me if this is wrong) that the basis of the hostility between Muslims and Jews is, they say, the fact that God named the Jews as his "chosen people". The Koran actually acknowledges this, apparently! Obviously the Arabs weren't too happy about it.
The standard can't be written very well if so many implementations, on both the hardware and software side, have achieved certification and yet still got it wrong.
I've been having similar problems with an old Toshiba 440 Satellite Pro running Windows 98. ACPI sucks badly, and I don't know of any operating systems that can handle it without problems. Maybe some of the more advanced versions of Windows?
You're entitled to your opinion however naive and simplistic it may be. However I find your determination to accept no other interpretation but your own, very very reminiscent of the same authoritarians you despise so much. How ironic.
If perspective means me telling other people what is right and wrong and forcing those opinions on them, no thanks: I'll stay 27 forever. You nailed it right there, I think. Fortunately our societies are governed by wiser heads, and always will be.
The problem isn't people who use it sensibly. The problem is those who go overboard, because of the way their brains are designed. Since whether or not you can get to enjoy getting high isn't all that important*, it's better to restrict supply for the benefit of those who are likely to suffer severe damaged from exposure to it.
*this is the bit you're missing. You are ranting on an on as if prohibition is a major imposition. Look: this isn't air water or food that we are talking about here. If getting *high* is so important to you personally that you are, for the sake of your own temporal self gratification, prepared to risk having people's lived destroyed by addiction - because that is what will and does happen to some people- then I think you need to grow a sense of perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
The CYC project may not yet have come up with the right mechanism to turn their database into a conscious, self aware entity, but the information and semantic relationships they have captured in the process is an essential tool, and must surely remain so, for anybody attempting to develop anything similar. After all, you either have to load the information into the software before power-on, or else it is going to take several years for the information to be captured in the "traditional" way. And who can wait that long just to see how one particular experiment will turn out?
Children, please!
Well said. Though the spiteful anti-French sentiments mandated by the Party are, I believe, parroted only by the Proles. Most people here are faily well educated, surely, and above such jingoistic nonsense.
The correct thing to do, ergonomically, is to have a confirmation dialog (yes/no) popup whenever you select "close other tabs". This prevents data loss easily without having to throw away useful functionality. There was a very long thread on bugzilla about this, for a very long time it was getting the usual "wontfix" response from some arrogant dickhead developer who insisted he knew better than the rest of us. That's the same sort of mentality that causes bad government.
I concede the point though I can't see for the life of me why a Unix SA would want anything to do with an OS that has no command line. The very idea is enough to make me hyperventilate.
for exactly the same reason, if you were even half way computer literate.
It works just fine. The software comes with templates for the most common home entertainment devices, plus you can define your own devices and it has "learning remote" functionality so you can program in any other remote codes you want. Dont forget this handheld has a good quality illuminated colour screen and has Wi-Fi and bluetooth built in. It's also cheaper doing this than buying a dedicated programmable LCD remote, at least it was last time I looked.
I loved Babylon 5 unreasonably, but I'm still convinced this movie will bomb because the things that made the series great are *gone*.
Another thing: other posts analyze why the series peaked at season three. I always wondered about that. The answer, it appears, is that Straczinsky was screwed around by Warner Bros and could never be sure if the series would continue as planned or be axed early. Way to go, Warner, there's nothing quite like shitting on your own doorstep is there? How ironic that the very worst thing that can happen to TV, is TV executives.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised since the very same dynamic operates in the movie industry. Just look at Highlander II (oops, sorry for reminding you...).
Wrong about a couple of things:
Lazenby was dropped only because he was a temperamental prima donna on the set. I guess he thought he was going to get to be the "big star" but he miscalculated; it was just too easy to replace him after only one movie, especially with Connery available again. The studio might possibly have put up with it if they'd known Connery was only going to come back for one more movie.
OHMSS is actually many Bond connoisseurs' favourite Bond flick, not least because of Lazenby's action hero performance (BTW before you get started on his acting skills, at least he tried. And nobody's handing out medals for method acting to Connery either. Dalton is another matter).
As to the Lazenby Bond's all-too-brief marriage: you must have forgotten - that's what happend in the film, because that's what happened in the Ian Fleming novel. Lazenby had nothing to do with that decision, he just played it like he was told.
Moore: I loved Moore as Bond, but that's because I really like the way it pokes fun at itself. As far as action goes, Moore doesn't add much. In fact he long ago owned up that he used a stuntman for *everything* - even running, because (he said) when he runs he looks like a duck. So thats why he doesnt look silly doing stunts: he isn't doing them at all.
Dalton is a very experienced, classically trained actor and a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company. I deeply regret his decision to bow out of Bond movies after only two films! You're completely right about his credibility as a total nutter. Loved it when he told M to shove it his licence and fled to catch Leitner's attackers. You never really saw Bond *angry* before that!
Brosnan just doesn't work for me at all. The guy has no charisma. With him in it, it's just like any other special effects- focussed action film. Ho hum.
Rumour has it that Ewan McGregor is being considered to take over. I have no idea what that will be like. Probably crap. He's not really Mr Screen Presence either.
those scary guys who whack themselves on the head until they bleed
It came to me finally: Hezbollah.
I take the point about the identity of certain characters in the Abarahamic faiths. Likewise it seems the Islamic prophet Isa who was intended (by Mohammed) to represent Jesus, was misreported in the Koran owing, presumes, to a faulty knowledge of Christian and Jewish scripture on Mohammed's part.
Your reply prompted me to do some further reading - not least the thread that you linked to. This conversation spun off a whole series of searches which turned up (mixed in with a certain amount of hopeless drivel) a lot of serious theological analysis on both sides of the issue.
I was astounded in particular by historical accounts of the practice of dhimmitude, as documented by BAt Ye'or. It seems that Islamic scripture, - including even parts of the Koran - sets a precedent for the subjugation of non-Islamic populations, deprivation of their human rights, and ultimately genocide.
There are also parts of the Jewish Talmud which encourage the same kinds of treatment of gentiles, and even paedophilia (in ancient Jewish law, a girl of three years old can be wed).
Lets not forget also the atrocities that have been perpetuated in the name of Christianity, most notably during the Crusades and also the treatment of supposed heretics and apostates during the centuries of the Inquisition.
Frankly the message I take from these readings is that all organized religion is something to be reviled by all civilized people.
It's often been said that because the Muslim faith is some 600 years younger than Christianity that it is unfair to compare contemporary Islam with contemporary Christianity, that Islam now more closely resembles what Christendom was up to during the late middle ages - not long out of the crusades, with the whole of Europe under the dictat of the Papacy and the terror of the Inquisition. No doubt these institutions managed to find scriptural justification for their actions too.
However I think this argument is a dangerous diversion. Even if Islam does reform successfully at some point in the future, any of the three Abrahamic faiths has sufficient precedent in its scripture to justify the mistreatment of fellow human beings. And as social circumstances change, any of these three religions could just as easily undergo a fundamentalist revival at any time. Today for example Islam has its Hamas (and those scary guys who whack themselves on the head until they bleed - I forget what they call themselves); Judaism already has its Zionists; Christianity has its right wing fundamentalists.
If we ever allow one of these faiths to take control of a state even in its seemingly most benign form, we are therefore risking future inhumanity on a massive scale: torture, murder, war and genocide.
You can't even trust Buddhism, peaceful though those folks may seem; they are just as guilty - q.v. the feudal system in pre-Chinese-invasion Tibet.
Hmmm.
You know a well as I do that in any substantial body of holy writing support will be found (via a certain amount of logic chopping and twisting of words) for any proposition under the sun. Right wing Christian fundamentalists do exactly the same thing with the Christian Bible, using this technique in effect to turn Christianity into its exact opposite.
Different Muslim sects interpret this in different ways. It's unlikely that the Koran itself is evil, The evil adheres only to those branches of Islam that preach and practice such barbaric traditions.
IIRC, the punishments you mentioned are prescribed in the Hadith, not the Koran itself which is fairly benign.
Well, that part of history everybody knows. But I still thought it was fascinating that the Muslims acknowledge the Jews as God's chosen. That still hasn't been repudiated, not to my knowledge.
(It reminds me, for some reason, of an old science fiction novel - Robert Silverberg I think - where humans find they've been forsaken by God for an exaterrestrial race, and humanity declares war on God).
Sorry to interrupt, but this is barely even a theological issue - it's more like a historical one. Much as it pains me to admit it, GWB is perfectly right on this one.
Abraham's younger son Jacob, as the Bible says, had twelve sons (Asher, Benjamin, Dan, Gad, Issachar, Joseph, Judah, Levi, Naphtali, Reuben, Simeon and Zebulun) who were the founders of the twelve tribes of Israel. The Jews are supposed to be descended from Judah.
However Abraham's eldest son Ishmail is said to have fathered the Arab nations.
Whether you believe this as historical fact or not, what isn't in dispute is that the God of Abraham is worshipped as the one true God not only in the Christian Bible but also in both the Torah of the Jews and in the Koran of the Muslims.
What you need to understand that even the Jews and Muslims agree on this, and they surely wouldn't if there was any way out of it. However, its a matter of historical record as far as they are concerned.
It's well documented not only in the holy writings themselves but on theology sites all over the internet so you can check this out for yourself without even getting up.
The part that really gets me though is (and here I'm only reporting what I've been told by some Islamic students of the Koran, so don't blame me if this is wrong) that the basis of the hostility between Muslims and Jews is, they say, the fact that God named the Jews as his "chosen people". The Koran actually acknowledges this, apparently! Obviously the Arabs weren't too happy about it.
And the evil bit is set!
Yeah, but *everybody* knows that...
Was that sarcasm? I'm no fan of Microsoft, but at least NT and its descendants are almost stable. 98SE wasn't really.
Don't bother, I'm not going to get backed into a position where I'm defending something that came from Microsoft. That would just be too surreal.
Jeez, what an industry. No wonder its crap.
The standard can't be written very well if so many implementations, on both the hardware and software side, have achieved certification and yet still got it wrong.
I've been having similar problems with an old Toshiba 440 Satellite Pro running Windows 98.
ACPI sucks badly, and I don't know of any operating systems that can handle it without problems. Maybe some of the more advanced versions of Windows?
You're entitled to your opinion however naive and simplistic it may be. However I find your determination to accept no other interpretation but your own, very very reminiscent of the same authoritarians you despise so much. How ironic.
I think you need to calm down a bit. Maybe go smoke a joint.
If perspective means me telling other people what is right and wrong and forcing those opinions on them, no thanks: I'll stay 27 forever.
You nailed it right there, I think. Fortunately our societies are governed by wiser heads, and always will be.
The problem isn't people who use it sensibly. The problem is those who go overboard, because of the way their brains are designed. Since whether or not you can get to enjoy getting high isn't all that important*, it's better to restrict supply for the benefit of those who are likely to suffer severe damaged from exposure to it.
*this is the bit you're missing. You are ranting on an on as if prohibition is a major imposition. Look: this isn't air water or food that we are talking about here. If getting *high* is so important to you personally that you are, for the sake of your own temporal self gratification, prepared to risk having people's lived destroyed by addiction - because that is what will and does happen to some people- then I think you need to grow a sense of perspective.