Why does everyone assume that this is a first-person account? If you have access to things, you probably know other people who have access to other things. Perhaps these people talk to one another. Snowden could know these things the same way we know them: someone else spilled the beans.
If everything comes down to a cost benefit analysis, we lose everything that isn't profitable. Have you ever worked for a company that valued its "profit centers" at the expense of the rest of the workforce? It is a narrow and short-sighted viewpoint, divorced from reality. Not everything needs to be approached as a business.
Direct X is for games. And people who want to play their games will give up all sorts of important things in order to play them.
Recently, the always-online and amazingly intrusive Microsoft eye have caused Microsoft to back off on some things and that's encouraging, but the behavior is obvious and Microsoft wouldn't try it if they didn't think they could get away with it.
"Oh, I hate Windows 8...I'll never use that... oh? What's that? The next release of my favorite game? Only on Windows 8? I hate Windows 8... oh well... Windows 8 'just so I can play my game.'"
It seems to work the other way around; game developers look at their audience and build to that. The scenario you describe already didn't happen - nobody bought Vista, so very few games required DX 10, so nobody bought Vista.
Neither did anyone else; Google had a technical solution to a problem that some people had, people liked it, now it is going away. There are other people with similar solutions, and we're each trying to figure out which one fits our needs best.
My use of a reader solves a slightly different problem; I personally do not follow all that many sites but many of the ones I do follow update irregularly, so it is easier for me to simply be notified when they do update than to uselessly visit a page that has nothing new. Even the ones that update regularly but not daily lend themselves to a feed reader for me; I don't need a scheduled stop on M-W-F for Site A and M-F for Site B, and just Mondays for Site C; they all just pop into the reader whenever they update, and I don't particularly care when that is. A reader also makes sure I don't miss anything, because it keeps track of what I've already read.
Meanwhile, bookmarks work just fine and none of this impacts you at all; what's the problem?
I've been on Feedly since the announced shutdown of Google Reader, but just switched to The Old Reader because it's simple, fast, and clean. Thanks to the people who recommended it here.
That doesn't make sense in the long run; if the result is that ubiquitous, then the stigma will become less severe. It is difficult to achieve widespread notoriety in a world where everyone is posted online, all the time - witness the lengths YouTube attention whores have to go to already, and you'll see that someone recording you eating like a pig at Uno's just won't be newsworthy at all.
Most people, even in the incarceration capital of the world, make it to their 30s without being arrested at all. This makes the event (somewhat) notable, doesn't it? Notable things are the things we talk about.
I think your point is that this crime is trivial enough to warrant expiration, but then where do you draw the line? I believe that the published lists of sex offenders is abusive and contrary to what are supposed to be American values, but a moratorium on talking about it at all seems equally unjust. Who decides how much time must pass before being bankrupted is no longer relevant when talking about a businessman? Do we have a list of crimes, or does this situation only apply to rich people, each of whom can decide for themselves when their reputation should no longer be marred by their actions? Should a convicted drug dealer be able to not only legally conceal the fact on his resume, reasoning that he hasn't dealt drugs in a while, but also be able to prosecute anyone who reveals the fact to his prospective employer? How about a thief applying to a security firm?
The fact is, his complaint is that a salient business event in his life is affecting his business. Isn't this exactly as it should be? How is this not a ludicrous complaint?
His point was that, if he executed the program manually, he could communicate in Chinese just as the AI does. He would be performing the exact same steps and getting the exact same answers, and yet he would not, in the process, learn Chinese. The point being that the AI could be capable of communicating in Chinese without understanding anything it was saying. In that event, the AI would not be a mind, because communication without understanding isn't intelligence.
I guess I don't understand your point. Let's say you are completely correct; so what? Aren't we, as Americans, supposed to hold ourselves to higher standards of behavior, particularly in terms of tolerance of different races and belief systems? Saying that a militant theocracy acts in a certain horrific way doesn't mean we get to act that way, too;. it means that it's a good thing we're not a militant theocracy. Additionally, criticizing another nation for not adhering to our standards of behavior seems pointless to me, while criticizing ourselves for the same reason seems like a good idea.
No, but not because it's the nice thing to do. I wouldn't say that because art is about expression, not competition. It doesn't matter at all that her sister is better.
It is fear; what you are seeing is overcompensation. Americans have been bombarded constantly with fear by our media, politicians, and even entertainment for a couple of decades now, at least. We are a terrified nation, and that is why we have so much bluster. There are things for which we can rightly be proud, but we've lost all perspective. There is no purposeful evil behind it; it has made a few people very, very wealthy. That's all.
It would never pass; to defeat it, opponents could simply add unrelated and unacceptable riders, which wouldn't yet be illegal. And to be completely fair, some lawmakers did attempt to solve this problem, but it didn't work.
Listening to an argument is meaningless when you do not understand the concepts involved. All the judge did was provide a brief glossary for pertinent terms, like "design patent" and "ornamental design." There is nothing underhanded going on.
Okay, let's forget empathy. The problem with pointing it out, logically, is that it is a complete waste of time and energy. The athlete is already aware of his medal status. If he feels that he let his father down, then he already knows that, as well. Pointing either of those things out serves no logical purpose at all; the only likely effect is to make the athlete feel worse, which does not change the outcome and is unlikely to improve future performance.
In short: if you truly do not (or cannot) care what other people are feeling, then perhaps there is nothing wrong with doing it, but no reason that you would. If you would send such a message, then you do care; that's why you're doing it.
Applying your standards to others' actions, and vice-versa, simply does not work; surely you learned this long ago.
Barring some completely new innovative MMO, there is only one game that can kill WoW, and that is WoW. It made a fine attempt around the release of Cataclysm and lost a lot of people, but then righted itself in time. Could still happen, but it won't be "WoW done better," it'll be "WoW got worse."
I did not miss your point. However, if the computer does actually prevent accidents, which I assume would have to be the case for people to become so complacent, the number of accidents may well decrease even with lowered human alertness, i.e., the type of accidents that are increased may be fewer in number than the type of accidents mitigated. In that case, lives are saved, damage is lessened, and it is an overall gain. Your position seems to assume that the computers do not actually work.
Yes, because when public safety is the issue, what's important is ownership of the data. It's hard to believe that all these people can't see what's really on the line here: profits. Get some perspective, you capitalism-haters!
I have also worked for the federal government, and I do see the problem here; the scientists in question used the chain of command properly, and that chain failed to act appropriately. There is no law or moral code that requires them to submit to incompetence or corruption, and shame on anyone who would have them do so.
I suspect that you misread that; the IG declined to investigate the leak, which was (ostensibly) made in the public interest. This is how the good guys would act. The FDA is out of line, but the system as a whole seems healthy in this case.
You can play Steam games completely offline once they are installed, and if you're looking to pay less for games you're probably ignoring the single best way to do that; Steam sales are pretty ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Why does everyone assume that this is a first-person account? If you have access to things, you probably know other people who have access to other things. Perhaps these people talk to one another. Snowden could know these things the same way we know them: someone else spilled the beans.
We are! The key is to use words in a certain way. You just won't listen, and that is why you keep dying. It is heartbreaking, really.
If everything comes down to a cost benefit analysis, we lose everything that isn't profitable. Have you ever worked for a company that valued its "profit centers" at the expense of the rest of the workforce? It is a narrow and short-sighted viewpoint, divorced from reality. Not everything needs to be approached as a business.
Direct X is for games. And people who want to play their games will give up all sorts of important things in order to play them.
Recently, the always-online and amazingly intrusive Microsoft eye have caused Microsoft to back off on some things and that's encouraging, but the behavior is obvious and Microsoft wouldn't try it if they didn't think they could get away with it.
"Oh, I hate Windows 8...I'll never use that... oh? What's that? The next release of my favorite game? Only on Windows 8? I hate Windows 8... oh well... Windows 8 'just so I can play my game.'"
It seems to work the other way around; game developers look at their audience and build to that. The scenario you describe already didn't happen - nobody bought Vista, so very few games required DX 10, so nobody bought Vista.
Neither did anyone else; Google had a technical solution to a problem that some people had, people liked it, now it is going away. There are other people with similar solutions, and we're each trying to figure out which one fits our needs best.
My use of a reader solves a slightly different problem; I personally do not follow all that many sites but many of the ones I do follow update irregularly, so it is easier for me to simply be notified when they do update than to uselessly visit a page that has nothing new. Even the ones that update regularly but not daily lend themselves to a feed reader for me; I don't need a scheduled stop on M-W-F for Site A and M-F for Site B, and just Mondays for Site C; they all just pop into the reader whenever they update, and I don't particularly care when that is. A reader also makes sure I don't miss anything, because it keeps track of what I've already read.
Meanwhile, bookmarks work just fine and none of this impacts you at all; what's the problem?
I've been on Feedly since the announced shutdown of Google Reader, but just switched to The Old Reader because it's simple, fast, and clean. Thanks to the people who recommended it here.
Everyone is always defending themselves, that's the magic of combining Selfishness with Point-of-View.
That doesn't make sense in the long run; if the result is that ubiquitous, then the stigma will become less severe. It is difficult to achieve widespread notoriety in a world where everyone is posted online, all the time - witness the lengths YouTube attention whores have to go to already, and you'll see that someone recording you eating like a pig at Uno's just won't be newsworthy at all.
That trade-off (losing rights to gain happiness) is the basis of our civilization.
Most people, even in the incarceration capital of the world, make it to their 30s without being arrested at all. This makes the event (somewhat) notable, doesn't it? Notable things are the things we talk about.
I think your point is that this crime is trivial enough to warrant expiration, but then where do you draw the line? I believe that the published lists of sex offenders is abusive and contrary to what are supposed to be American values, but a moratorium on talking about it at all seems equally unjust. Who decides how much time must pass before being bankrupted is no longer relevant when talking about a businessman? Do we have a list of crimes, or does this situation only apply to rich people, each of whom can decide for themselves when their reputation should no longer be marred by their actions? Should a convicted drug dealer be able to not only legally conceal the fact on his resume, reasoning that he hasn't dealt drugs in a while, but also be able to prosecute anyone who reveals the fact to his prospective employer? How about a thief applying to a security firm?
The fact is, his complaint is that a salient business event in his life is affecting his business. Isn't this exactly as it should be? How is this not a ludicrous complaint?
I think you missed his point.
His point was that, if he executed the program manually, he could communicate in Chinese just as the AI does. He would be performing the exact same steps and getting the exact same answers, and yet he would not, in the process, learn Chinese. The point being that the AI could be capable of communicating in Chinese without understanding anything it was saying. In that event, the AI would not be a mind, because communication without understanding isn't intelligence.
I guess I don't understand your point. Let's say you are completely correct; so what? Aren't we, as Americans, supposed to hold ourselves to higher standards of behavior, particularly in terms of tolerance of different races and belief systems? Saying that a militant theocracy acts in a certain horrific way doesn't mean we get to act that way, too;. it means that it's a good thing we're not a militant theocracy. Additionally, criticizing another nation for not adhering to our standards of behavior seems pointless to me, while criticizing ourselves for the same reason seems like a good idea.
What am I missing?
No, but not because it's the nice thing to do. I wouldn't say that because art is about expression, not competition. It doesn't matter at all that her sister is better.
It is fear; what you are seeing is overcompensation. Americans have been bombarded constantly with fear by our media, politicians, and even entertainment for a couple of decades now, at least. We are a terrified nation, and that is why we have so much bluster. There are things for which we can rightly be proud, but we've lost all perspective. There is no purposeful evil behind it; it has made a few people very, very wealthy. That's all.
If the student failed to learn, the teacher failed to teach.
It would never pass; to defeat it, opponents could simply add unrelated and unacceptable riders, which wouldn't yet be illegal. And to be completely fair, some lawmakers did attempt to solve this problem, but it didn't work.
Listening to an argument is meaningless when you do not understand the concepts involved. All the judge did was provide a brief glossary for pertinent terms, like "design patent" and "ornamental design." There is nothing underhanded going on.
Okay, let's forget empathy. The problem with pointing it out, logically, is that it is a complete waste of time and energy. The athlete is already aware of his medal status. If he feels that he let his father down, then he already knows that, as well. Pointing either of those things out serves no logical purpose at all; the only likely effect is to make the athlete feel worse, which does not change the outcome and is unlikely to improve future performance.
In short: if you truly do not (or cannot) care what other people are feeling, then perhaps there is nothing wrong with doing it, but no reason that you would. If you would send such a message, then you do care; that's why you're doing it.
Applying your standards to others' actions, and vice-versa, simply does not work; surely you learned this long ago.
Barring some completely new innovative MMO, there is only one game that can kill WoW, and that is WoW. It made a fine attempt around the release of Cataclysm and lost a lot of people, but then righted itself in time. Could still happen, but it won't be "WoW done better," it'll be "WoW got worse."
I did not miss your point. However, if the computer does actually prevent accidents, which I assume would have to be the case for people to become so complacent, the number of accidents may well decrease even with lowered human alertness, i.e., the type of accidents that are increased may be fewer in number than the type of accidents mitigated. In that case, lives are saved, damage is lessened, and it is an overall gain. Your position seems to assume that the computers do not actually work.
Yes, because when public safety is the issue, what's important is ownership of the data. It's hard to believe that all these people can't see what's really on the line here: profits. Get some perspective, you capitalism-haters!
I have also worked for the federal government, and I do see the problem here; the scientists in question used the chain of command properly, and that chain failed to act appropriately. There is no law or moral code that requires them to submit to incompetence or corruption, and shame on anyone who would have them do so.
I suspect that you misread that; the IG declined to investigate the leak, which was (ostensibly) made in the public interest. This is how the good guys would act. The FDA is out of line, but the system as a whole seems healthy in this case.
You can play Steam games completely offline once they are installed, and if you're looking to pay less for games you're probably ignoring the single best way to do that; Steam sales are pretty ridiculous.
That game, was crap, commas are underpowered, and need buffs! I have to spam them, just to keep up, with periods.