"A child doesn't need a special gene to discover the linguistic consequences of garden path sentence structures. "Oh damn, my mind when the wrong direction, and I wasted cognitive effort". Thus a child can self-infer a constraint on viable grammatical form, even if, in the manner of an LZW dictionary, the constraint is never explicitly conveyed from the language proficient to the language learner."
Oh how I wish that were true. I have seen too many people complain about something someone did, only to do it themselfes and not realizing it. Most people lack the sort of self reflection that allows them to see the error in their ways.
If the dll came with a given application, that dll will be removed. If it's a standard windows dll, obviously it won't be removed after uninstalling a third party application, and why should it?
Then there is the case where two applications from the same company share a set of dlls, in that case uninstalling one of the applications will not delete the shared dlls, but that is equivalent to first uninstalling one application completely (removing the shared dlls) and then installing the other application (adding the shared dlls again).
applications do NOT leave random dlls behind after installation, unless they are being used by another application as well, in which case the behavior is expected. But it doesn't happen by default.
Obviously, the side that has no robots left (or had none to begin with) will still have to fight with regular human soldiers. Also obviously, the war robots would have to uphold the typical war conventions, not be allowed to harm civilians etc.
You're afraid of this prospect because you don't want to be on the side not having the robots. But if you are the one having the robots, the whole thing starts looking a bit brighter, eh?
I'm looking at it more from the perspective of being attacked by a foreign country. In that case, hell yeah, I would love to have me some terminator killer robots on MY side. I don't see the problem with it.
Finally, I too don't enjoy the prospect of e.g. the US employing such things. Not because the general concept disturbs me, but because the US has shown itself to be an beligerent nation time and again, meddling in other countries for their own purposes. But it's not the robots I mind, it's the government and the damn people who are unwilling to select a better one.
1) There is absolutely no reason that robots should turn against their masters (at least for the time being). The models currently being developed have no consciousness, no desires or anything like that that would make them turn on their masters. I assume that this going to be the case for quite a while. 2) Yes, even a non-conscious robot may turn bad because of a programming error, where a strange set of circumstances will cause it to turn on its masters. However, such a set of circumstances is likely to be a very local phenomenom and will not involve ALL robots to suddenly conspire to take over. 3) Developing robots for peaceful tasks may just be a wise financial decision. Let the public pay for the development of the basic technology (in return for robotic servants) and when most of the kinks are worked out it will be far cheaper to adapt them for warfare purposes. 4) Who is to say that Japan is not also developing robots for military purposes at the same time? 5) Would you rather lose a lot of human lives in a war, or let the robots do the fighting for you?
At the very most the copyright of the output would belong to whoever wrote the GPL'd software. He/She/They would then be able to chose a license for that output, it would not automatically become GPL licensed.
Imagine an online map service that only stores the location data itself in its database (i.e. no images). The database file itself may be under copyright, but the actual location data are just facts and not copyrightable.
Now they offer a webservice that translates some parts of the database into a pretty map. Who holds the copyright for that map?
Ok, when I was a child I too was "afraid" of needles (as most kids probably are). But now I don't see the problem anymore, it's very very short sting that fades away immediately and doesn't even hurt much to begin with.
In contrast, a mosquito bite is bound to itch for hours.
Just to make absolute sure you understand my point (I do understand how you arrive at your wrong assumption btw), imagine there are three well established categories of some item: small, medium, large.
Now when comparing two items in the medium category, how do you relate their relative size to each other? Exactly, you say one of them is smaller/bigger than the other. But that does NOT imply that the items are in the small/big category, it just points out the difference in size.
And when qualifying the stament with a given factor (e.g. ten times) it OBVIOUSLY always refers to the baseline of zero. This is not ambiguous and not confusing in any way.
Also, just to be pedantic: pedantic is spelled without an n before the t.
My nationality is actually danish, nevertheless I had never heard of these sort of numbers being published before (and so easily comparable). Not that I didn't think these numbers could be found, I just never happened to find them myself.
I'm sorry, but when I say that my house is smaller than yours, I do in no way imply that your OR my house is small in absolute terms. It just means that one is less big than the other.
Now, just saying it is smaller than the other is relatively vague, because we do not know how great the difference actually is. Adding that information does in absolutely no way change the point in my first paragraph. Saying something is smaller than something else does NOT imply that one or both items are small themselves.
Very well, these figures are rather convincing, at least for the UK. Thank you for clearing this up.
In the future I would recommend to add these sources to the post immediately with all of these benefits:
1) Higher karma for you 2) Better accessible information for everyone (esp. because of point 1) 3) Saves space of slashdot, because we don't need to argue back and forth
But you most likely figured that out already:)
PS: I don't mean to be condescending or patronizing. And sorry for everyone elses post which I did not reply to.
My father, who is a doctor, says you are plain wrong and that the costs to society from treating these patients is far higher than the tax income. As a layman I cannot judge who is right or wrong, but I urge everyone to take the parent post with a grain of salt or at least a [citation needed].
Yeah, that particular part was probably a bit harsh. But the GGP was just trying to make a point (there can only be one winner), not trying to belittle the efforts of the others. It was a rhetorical hyperbole - not an actual "insult".
The GP may have tried to do the same, but I find his message far less clear. If I have misinterpreted his post, I apologise.
Well, even though I rad slashdot more or less every day, all those stories have eloped me for some reason or other (vacation? boring?). I remember only the first announcement of the contest back then.
Yes, and I remember reading about it, but it took me quite some time to remember what particular contest they were talking about. It wouldn't have hurt to either give a link to the description page or put in half a sentence about the contest goals.
It's this childish view that makes people think they should take up tasks they are not suited for, boldly proclaim "facts" they don't know anything about and in general behave unresponsibly.
Kids/People need to know that life isn't always fair, not everyone is a winner and not people just aren't equal (in an individual sense).
Telling them this stupid crap just makes them have unrealistic expectations and gives them a sense of entitlement that won't do them any good and quite probably will cause problems during their entire life.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it seems that it gets more and more difficult for me to buy videogames, because they are all full of shit I don't want (DRM, ads...).
I wish people would start acting like grown ups and outright refuse to buy that sort of crap like me. But apparently most people don't care enough.
Wish I hadn't spent all my mod points already. These stupid phrases annoy me everytime I see them as well. Oh well...
I'm not saying that his assessmen of the IE dlls being core dlls is wrong.
I'm just just saying games won't leave random "rendering" dlls behind after being uninstalled.
"A child doesn't need a special gene to discover the linguistic consequences of garden path sentence structures. "Oh damn, my mind when the wrong direction, and I wasted cognitive effort". Thus a child can self-infer a constraint on viable grammatical form, even if, in the manner of an LZW dictionary, the constraint is never explicitly conveyed from the language proficient to the language learner."
Oh how I wish that were true. I have seen too many people complain about something someone did, only to do it themselfes and not realizing it. Most people lack the sort of self reflection that allows them to see the error in their ways.
America is not a continent, America is a country. While it's not the official name of it, the US is often referred to as such.
The continent would be South America and North America respectively.
That is bullshit.
If the dll came with a given application, that dll will be removed. If it's a standard windows dll, obviously it won't be removed after uninstalling a third party application, and why should it?
Then there is the case where two applications from the same company share a set of dlls, in that case uninstalling one of the applications will not delete the shared dlls, but that is equivalent to first uninstalling one application completely (removing the shared dlls) and then installing the other application (adding the shared dlls again).
applications do NOT leave random dlls behind after installation, unless they are being used by another application as well, in which case the behavior is expected. But it doesn't happen by default.
Obviously, the side that has no robots left (or had none to begin with) will still have to fight with regular human soldiers. Also obviously, the war robots would have to uphold the typical war conventions, not be allowed to harm civilians etc.
You're afraid of this prospect because you don't want to be on the side not having the robots. But if you are the one having the robots, the whole thing starts looking a bit brighter, eh?
I'm looking at it more from the perspective of being attacked by a foreign country. In that case, hell yeah, I would love to have me some terminator killer robots on MY side. I don't see the problem with it.
Finally, I too don't enjoy the prospect of e.g. the US employing such things. Not because the general concept disturbs me, but because the US has shown itself to be an beligerent nation time and again, meddling in other countries for their own purposes. But it's not the robots I mind, it's the government and the damn people who are unwilling to select a better one.
1) There is absolutely no reason that robots should turn against their masters (at least for the time being). The models currently being developed have no consciousness, no desires or anything like that that would make them turn on their masters. I assume that this going to be the case for quite a while.
2) Yes, even a non-conscious robot may turn bad because of a programming error, where a strange set of circumstances will cause it to turn on its masters. However, such a set of circumstances is likely to be a very local phenomenom and will not involve ALL robots to suddenly conspire to take over.
3) Developing robots for peaceful tasks may just be a wise financial decision. Let the public pay for the development of the basic technology (in return for robotic servants) and when most of the kinks are worked out it will be far cheaper to adapt them for warfare purposes.
4) Who is to say that Japan is not also developing robots for military purposes at the same time?
5) Would you rather lose a lot of human lives in a war, or let the robots do the fighting for you?
nonsense!
At the very most the copyright of the output would belong to whoever wrote the GPL'd software. He/She/They would then be able to chose a license for that output, it would not automatically become GPL licensed.
This is an intriguing idea really.
Imagine an online map service that only stores the location data itself in its database (i.e. no images). The database file itself may be under copyright, but the actual location data are just facts and not copyrightable.
Now they offer a webservice that translates some parts of the database into a pretty map. Who holds the copyright for that map?
Ok, when I was a child I too was "afraid" of needles (as most kids probably are). But now I don't see the problem anymore, it's very very short sting that fades away immediately and doesn't even hurt much to begin with.
In contrast, a mosquito bite is bound to itch for hours.
of course, family and friends knew, but on the internet nobody would've had a clue.
I have done so plenty of times when I was out hiking.
it's all relative man... To anyone not involved a statement like yours seems a bit harsh.
At least if they don't understand in what context you meant it. Which someone apparently did not.
Just to make absolute sure you understand my point (I do understand how you arrive at your wrong assumption btw), imagine there are three well established categories of some item: small, medium, large.
Now when comparing two items in the medium category, how do you relate their relative size to each other? Exactly, you say one of them is smaller/bigger than the other. But that does NOT imply that the items are in the small/big category, it just points out the difference in size.
And when qualifying the stament with a given factor (e.g. ten times) it OBVIOUSLY always refers to the baseline of zero. This is not ambiguous and not confusing in any way.
Also, just to be pedantic: pedantic is spelled without an n before the t.
My nationality is actually danish, nevertheless I had never heard of these sort of numbers being published before (and so easily comparable). Not that I didn't think these numbers could be found, I just never happened to find them myself.
I'm sorry, but when I say that my house is smaller than yours, I do in no way imply that your OR my house is small in absolute terms. It just means that one is less big than the other.
Now, just saying it is smaller than the other is relatively vague, because we do not know how great the difference actually is. Adding that information does in absolutely no way change the point in my first paragraph. Saying something is smaller than something else does NOT imply that one or both items are small themselves.
And there you have it, the other reference point is quite obviously 0. I don't quite see what the fuss is all about?
Very well, these figures are rather convincing, at least for the UK. Thank you for clearing this up.
In the future I would recommend to add these sources to the post immediately with all of these benefits:
1) Higher karma for you
2) Better accessible information for everyone (esp. because of point 1)
3) Saves space of slashdot, because we don't need to argue back and forth
But you most likely figured that out already :)
PS: I don't mean to be condescending or patronizing. And sorry for everyone elses post which I did not reply to.
Could you provide your sources for that statement? I have always been told it was the other way around.
My father, who is a doctor, says you are plain wrong and that the costs to society from treating these patients is far higher than the tax income. As a layman I cannot judge who is right or wrong, but I urge everyone to take the parent post with a grain of salt or at least a [citation needed].
Yeah, that particular part was probably a bit harsh. But the GGP was just trying to make a point (there can only be one winner), not trying to belittle the efforts of the others. It was a rhetorical hyperbole - not an actual "insult".
The GP may have tried to do the same, but I find his message far less clear. If I have misinterpreted his post, I apologise.
Well, even though I rad slashdot more or less every day, all those stories have eloped me for some reason or other (vacation? boring?). I remember only the first announcement of the contest back then.
Yes, and I remember reading about it, but it took me quite some time to remember what particular contest they were talking about. It wouldn't have hurt to either give a link to the description page or put in half a sentence about the contest goals.
It's this childish view that makes people think they should take up tasks they are not suited for, boldly proclaim "facts" they don't know anything about and in general behave unresponsibly.
Kids/People need to know that life isn't always fair, not everyone is a winner and not people just aren't equal (in an individual sense).
Telling them this stupid crap just makes them have unrealistic expectations and gives them a sense of entitlement that won't do them any good and quite probably will cause problems during their entire life.