What are you on about? They had working systems in "real life"; they didn't just imagine it all. You seem to think that real life is only the US consumer market.
Now I'm imagining a bunch of future explorers / treasure hunters / archeologists shrugging off the curse of the ancient ruins as pure superstition. Coincidentally all to die several years later from a horrible sickness along with anyone the artifacts came into contact with.
That took you 20 minutes to figure out? You didn't look at a non-Apple tablet running Android and think to yourself: "Oh, A(ndroid) Tab(let)"?
And regardless of whether or not you can tell the difference between Apple and non-Apple it is still Apple's problem they made their tablet so generic that it doesn't stand apart from any black rectangle.
You cannot judge a message simply on "correct" spelling and grammar. There is always a divide between "standard" correct and general-usage correct. I put standard in quotes because in English there is an actual standards body. Almost no one is aware of all the nuances of English grammar and many are complicated and not worth the effort in informal communication. Because of this (see what I did there?) grammar is often changed over time from what the standards body views as "correct".
Claiming that this is wrong or shows ignorance or stupidity is foolish and hypocritical. Every single modern language is the result of this process. The progenitors of the English language would shudder at our use of the pronoun "you" for example.
And what does that have to do with anything? It was asserted by StrikeThree that a statement made by an AC will not be respected simply because they are AC. What does a statement have to do with knowing you are still talking to the same person later on?
This is a perfect example. I do not care if you are StrikeThree or not; the sentiment remains the same. Disregarding ACs simply for being AC on a website where people are identified with pseudonyms and numbers is irony at its finest.
How is creating a one time use account anything more than AC? And unless your real name is Strike Three and your SSN 811449 how are you any better than an AC?
So you completely agree with me and then call me stupid? Although I do think 0.05 to be a little low for many people but barring a better way to measure intoxication maybe it's fine. When I go out with friends or family and have a couple of beers I am not pounding back 3 pints then jumping in my car. I am drinking lightly for several hours. I have never driven over Ontario's 0.05 limit but I do take offense to being told I should lose my license, that I am a selfish idiot or that I should die for driving after drinking a beer in the last couple of hours.
So maybe in the future you should read the whole thread before shouting out insults and being a presumptuous twat?
Cute, but not really true and going beyond the discussion so you can make an attempted insult. Reaction time is definitely the main driving ability that low BAC affects. One or two beers will not affect my judgement or risk-estimation and it will only imperceptibly affect my reaction time.
What good is this supposed super-human judgement and risk-assessment when it takes too long to realize the situation? I never said seniors shouldn't drive (well, some shouldn't) but if you're going to claim zero-tolerance alcohol you have to believe seniors are a menace as well because they do have measurably reduced driving ability.
What's with your hyperbole anyway? A single beer's inability to get me drunk doesn't make me overconfident or stupid. It just makes me a healthy, young 170 pound male.
Lowering the BAC doesn't stop drunk driving; it's already illegal to drive drunk. Lowering the BAC only serves to make scarier statistics and campaign brags ("We caught 10 million drunk drivers this year, look how safe we made you!").
Which isn't the topic. I don't believe anybody in this thread said they should be able to drive while obviously intoxicated. The original poster said zero alcohol which is an absurd notion.
Do you know what drunk and impaired are? Not 0.05 and not "I had a drink at dinner". Do you know how many people have a drink with friends and family then drive home? Way more than the number of gruesome drunk-driving fatalities and way more than normal driving fatalities. That doesn't sound like people thinking they're "special" to me. It sound like people think it's completely safe and normal because it is completely safe and normal.
I bet if you graphed the BAC > 0 driver accidents vs BAC > 0 driver no accident as well as the BAC = 0 driver accidents vs BAC = 0 driver no accidents you would find that bad drivers cause more accidents than low BAC.
I wonder if anybody has ever compared which is more dangerous: BAC <= 0.05 or soccer moms?
I bet being over 65 slows your reaction time way more than one (Canadian) beer does to me (which is probably approximately zero change). Probably more than two or three (drank over a reasonable amount of time) but I bet you, along with a slew of other accidents waiting to happen, won't give up your license at 65. Any time the slow reaction time of seniors is brought up in respect to driving it gets shot down pretty fast but lowering the BAC is constantly on someone's agenda. Is there a real reason for that or is it just prohibition 2.0?
I have seen a cop doing that in the area where my parents live (in Canada though). Large chunk of highway reduced to 60kmph and a cop hiding on a sideroad pulling everyone over on a Sunday (so absolutely no workers present and no work being done). The only reason I did not get a ticket the two times I drove past that sideroad was because the cop was already writing people up both times. And it was several hours apart the first and second drive by so I can only imagine the amount of tickets that cop wrote.
So when the job market was flooded with an influx of new workers wages dropped? Is that not what always happens? Although it is true that the root cause of that is still discrimination you cannot blame the lower wages as modern discrimination without a lot more evidence than chronological correlation.
I hate to rain on your joke but it seems like you misunderstood the comic. That wasn't Odin shouting his own name. That was a viking proclaiming that Odin did it and vanquishing his enemy.
The word is no more vile today than it was when this book was written. Now we just have a bunch of people that want to pretend like racism never happened. Also, I suppose, a lot of people that do not understand literature. Censoring a book because some people find a word offensive (which is the entire point of the word and the reason it was chosen) is a travesty.
Re:It's not just specialization, there is also fea
on
Where's HAL 9000?
·
· Score: 1
It does if you give it the properties. A mind is either a physical thing which can be simulated, emulated or recreated or it is a magical thing. I doubt it is a magical thing.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you on about? They had working systems in "real life"; they didn't just imagine it all. You seem to think that real life is only the US consumer market.
Now I'm imagining a bunch of future explorers / treasure hunters / archeologists shrugging off the curse of the ancient ruins as pure superstition. Coincidentally all to die several years later from a horrible sickness along with anyone the artifacts came into contact with.
That took you 20 minutes to figure out? You didn't look at a non-Apple tablet running Android and think to yourself: "Oh, A(ndroid) Tab(let)"?
And regardless of whether or not you can tell the difference between Apple and non-Apple it is still Apple's problem they made their tablet so generic that it doesn't stand apart from any black rectangle.
When we're talking about a simplistic black rectangle how many differences can there be?
You cannot judge a message simply on "correct" spelling and grammar. There is always a divide between "standard" correct and general-usage correct. I put standard in quotes because in English there is an actual standards body. Almost no one is aware of all the nuances of English grammar and many are complicated and not worth the effort in informal communication. Because of this (see what I did there?) grammar is often changed over time from what the standards body views as "correct".
Claiming that this is wrong or shows ignorance or stupidity is foolish and hypocritical. Every single modern language is the result of this process. The progenitors of the English language would shudder at our use of the pronoun "you" for example.
And what does that have to do with anything? It was asserted by StrikeThree that a statement made by an AC will not be respected simply because they are AC. What does a statement have to do with knowing you are still talking to the same person later on?
This is a perfect example. I do not care if you are StrikeThree or not; the sentiment remains the same. Disregarding ACs simply for being AC on a website where people are identified with pseudonyms and numbers is irony at its finest.
How is creating a one time use account anything more than AC? And unless your real name is Strike Three and your SSN 811449 how are you any better than an AC?
So you completely agree with me and then call me stupid? Although I do think 0.05 to be a little low for many people but barring a better way to measure intoxication maybe it's fine. When I go out with friends or family and have a couple of beers I am not pounding back 3 pints then jumping in my car. I am drinking lightly for several hours. I have never driven over Ontario's 0.05 limit but I do take offense to being told I should lose my license, that I am a selfish idiot or that I should die for driving after drinking a beer in the last couple of hours.
So maybe in the future you should read the whole thread before shouting out insults and being a presumptuous twat?
Cute, but not really true and going beyond the discussion so you can make an attempted insult. Reaction time is definitely the main driving ability that low BAC affects. One or two beers will not affect my judgement or risk-estimation and it will only imperceptibly affect my reaction time.
What good is this supposed super-human judgement and risk-assessment when it takes too long to realize the situation? I never said seniors shouldn't drive (well, some shouldn't) but if you're going to claim zero-tolerance alcohol you have to believe seniors are a menace as well because they do have measurably reduced driving ability.
What's with your hyperbole anyway? A single beer's inability to get me drunk doesn't make me overconfident or stupid. It just makes me a healthy, young 170 pound male.
Lowering the BAC doesn't stop drunk driving; it's already illegal to drive drunk. Lowering the BAC only serves to make scarier statistics and campaign brags ("We caught 10 million drunk drivers this year, look how safe we made you!").
Which isn't the topic. I don't believe anybody in this thread said they should be able to drive while obviously intoxicated. The original poster said zero alcohol which is an absurd notion.
Do you know what drunk and impaired are? Not 0.05 and not "I had a drink at dinner". Do you know how many people have a drink with friends and family then drive home? Way more than the number of gruesome drunk-driving fatalities and way more than normal driving fatalities. That doesn't sound like people thinking they're "special" to me. It sound like people think it's completely safe and normal because it is completely safe and normal.
I bet if you graphed the BAC > 0 driver accidents vs BAC > 0 driver no accident as well as the BAC = 0 driver accidents vs BAC = 0 driver no accidents you would find that bad drivers cause more accidents than low BAC.
I wonder if anybody has ever compared which is more dangerous: BAC <= 0.05 or soccer moms?
I bet being over 65 slows your reaction time way more than one (Canadian) beer does to me (which is probably approximately zero change). Probably more than two or three (drank over a reasonable amount of time) but I bet you, along with a slew of other accidents waiting to happen, won't give up your license at 65. Any time the slow reaction time of seniors is brought up in respect to driving it gets shot down pretty fast but lowering the BAC is constantly on someone's agenda. Is there a real reason for that or is it just prohibition 2.0?
I have seen a cop doing that in the area where my parents live (in Canada though). Large chunk of highway reduced to 60kmph and a cop hiding on a sideroad pulling everyone over on a Sunday (so absolutely no workers present and no work being done). The only reason I did not get a ticket the two times I drove past that sideroad was because the cop was already writing people up both times. And it was several hours apart the first and second drive by so I can only imagine the amount of tickets that cop wrote.
But yet Ford still isn't suing Chevrolet over the Camaro which clearly took design elements from the Ford Mustang.
It's a patent on the design and not the functionality. So yeah; I'd say it's fair to compare to the design of a non-functioning prop.
I believe there is no rule that in informal situations you cannot use the objective pronoun. Especially when there are no ambiguities.
"Him" should be "he."
I think you might want to brush up on your pronouns.
If there is not enough time to prove evolution in the classroom then it's not a science class.
Science does not work that way. Unless what you are saying is that no one has ever had a science class, ever.
So when the job market was flooded with an influx of new workers wages dropped? Is that not what always happens? Although it is true that the root cause of that is still discrimination you cannot blame the lower wages as modern discrimination without a lot more evidence than chronological correlation.
I hate to rain on your joke but it seems like you misunderstood the comic. That wasn't Odin shouting his own name. That was a viking proclaiming that Odin did it and vanquishing his enemy.
There is an infinite amount of numbers. Not all numbers are even. Therefore there is only a finite number of even numbers. QED. Nobel prize please.
"A lot" in the relative sense that 0.5% of porn is still a huge amount...
The word is no more vile today than it was when this book was written. Now we just have a bunch of people that want to pretend like racism never happened. Also, I suppose, a lot of people that do not understand literature. Censoring a book because some people find a word offensive (which is the entire point of the word and the reason it was chosen) is a travesty.
It does if you give it the properties. A mind is either a physical thing which can be simulated, emulated or recreated or it is a magical thing. I doubt it is a magical thing.