Yes, I noticed very well what you said. I also noticed what you MEANT: Like what YOU think a successful adult male dresses like.
I will allow for a causative effect: that dressing well will tend to give you more opportunities for success. What I won’t allow is the if-and-only-if relationship that you implied where successful people dress a particular way and people who dress that way are successful. Someone can be successful and when they’re out of the office they can choose to dress however they want without it having anything to do with the successfulness of their career inside the office. (“Successfulness” isn’t in Firefox’s dictionary – WTF?)
So, dress *like* a successful adult, who cares about not looking like an unpressed slob, and who values the impression they are making, and is willing to take a few minutes to make themselves look good.
When I value the impression I am making, I dress to suit the occasion. However, if I’m not trying to impress anyone, I won’t be dressing to impress anyone. In that sort of casual atmosphere, anyone who thinks the less of me because I’m in a t-shirt and shorts is welcome to be a snob. I won’t miss their good graces any.
Unless you’re in the big leagues, they’ll probably be happy enough as long as it’s just taken down. But yeah, you’re correct, they could go after you if they wanted to.
The nautical mile (symbol M, NM, Nm or nmi) is a unit of length corresponding approximately to one minute of arc of latitude along any meridian. By international agreement it is exactly 1,852 metres (approximately 6,076 feet).
Oh look, it seems that nm isn’t considered a valid abbreviation for nautical miles probably due to it being such a common abbreviation for nanometres...
Any lawyer worth his salt would tell his client they have no case.
And a really good lawyer would say that in a way that absolutely convinced their client that for just a little more money they could undoubtedly win the case.
Is an ant a sentient creature? Is an ant colony a sentient creature?
Electrons travel at the speed of light... do “holes” travel at the speed of dark?
A sizzling hot sausage just has a lot of kinetic energy... how significant is it that the average displacement happens to be basically zero? Could you cook food by putting it in a centrifuge? Can you separate elements of varying density out of a mixture by heating it?
Each of these questions has on a very basic level a very simple answer which is completely unhelpful when it comes to describing the effect of an astronomical number of these basic units acting in unison on a larger scale...
I think the automatic translation is a bad example, because it requires you to solve several problems,...
No, they are intricately related to AI and are precisely why it is a very good example.
The whole reason that parsing the text syntactically is hard is because it’s not context-free and it takes a good deal of reasoning to determine their correct meaning in context.
Just look at Google translate:
Nehmen Sie das Buch nach Hause. => Take the book home nehmen sie das buch nach hause. => they take the book home. nehmen sie das buch nach hause => Take the book back home nehmen, sie das buch nach hause => To take the book back home nehmen sie, das buch nach hause => take it, the book back home
And that’s just from changing the capitalisation and punctuation! It’s obviously doing a lot more than a simple De-En dictionary reference on each word and applying a few rules to make the result sound okay according to the English rules of grammar.
(Apologies if the German was hideous, guess where it came from...)
Your article presented a completely different scenario, so you can’t argue that it supports your position. A conversation is not a recording, and a recording is not a conversation. That’s precisely why there have to be laws concerning whether or not or under what conditions it’s acceptable to make recordings of conversations: because conversations and recordings are completely different things and treated completely differently from a legal point of view.
If I record a message on your machine, I retain copyright on it. You have fair use rights to quote from it, but there's no "implicit transfer of ownership". That's what my citation said.
No, your citation said that someone owns a common law copyright to what they say in a private conversation. It does not say anything at all about what rights you retain if you record a message on an answering machine. If anything, my releasing the message to the public could be considered a breach of confidence, but exactly what sort of confidence is assumed in a voice mail message is not well defined from a legal point of view AFAIK. There’s no implied or explicit agreement that I can’t tell everyone what you said in your message, and replaying it is fair use under that intention.
And I for you, because the concept that he posted is mind-blowing, earth-shattering, and undeniably true on an absolute-zero sort of level. But that doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy life just like anyone else... the knowledge that happiness is only a series of unbelievably complex chemical reactions doesn’t spoil it. It actually just makes it all the more interesting. Simplicity and complexity each have their own attractiveness and I enjoy being able to see the individual trees in addition to seeing the entire forest.
Computers are also chemical and brains are also electronic. Computers can be analog and digital logic can produce analog results to any desired level of precision. A molecule that acts as a neurotransmitter carries a discrete binary signal on its own.
The primary difference between a brain and a computer (as they currently exist) is that a brain is massively (almost unimaginably) parallel in its processing and a computer is primarily serial. However it’s possible for a serial processor to emulate a parallel one given enough time in which to do it.
If that’s what he was driving at, it’s no different from the difference between my perception of the color blue and the color orange. They just trigger different chemical receptors in my eyes and my brain perceives them as different colours. And who’s even to say that my perception of blue is the same as anyone else’s? We call it the same thing, sure, but what’s to say really?
And heat doesn’t really exist on an atomic level, either. It’s just atoms moving really quickly. How “real” is it exactly? Yet, on a larger scale, a baseball whacks you a quite bit differently than the burner on your stove.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn’t trying to describe the brain.
Yes, I noticed very well what you said. I also noticed what you MEANT: Like what YOU think a successful adult male dresses like.
I will allow for a causative effect: that dressing well will tend to give you more opportunities for success. What I won’t allow is the if-and-only-if relationship that you implied where successful people dress a particular way and people who dress that way are successful. Someone can be successful and when they’re out of the office they can choose to dress however they want without it having anything to do with the successfulness of their career inside the office. (“Successfulness” isn’t in Firefox’s dictionary – WTF?)
So, dress *like* a successful adult, who cares about not looking like an unpressed slob, and who values the impression they are making, and is willing to take a few minutes to make themselves look good.
When I value the impression I am making, I dress to suit the occasion. However, if I’m not trying to impress anyone, I won’t be dressing to impress anyone. In that sort of casual atmosphere, anyone who thinks the less of me because I’m in a t-shirt and shorts is welcome to be a snob. I won’t miss their good graces any.
Being able to dress like a successful adult male
Stop right there.
What conceivable relation, if any, exists between whether or not someone is successful and your approval of his wardrobe?
No, he means like this (click link:)
http://3.ly/2halj3u7
Unless you’re in the big leagues, they’ll probably be happy enough as long as it’s just taken down. But yeah, you’re correct, they could go after you if they wanted to.
I usually fix it by taking “idle.” out of the URL.
Okay... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile
The nautical mile (symbol M, NM, Nm or nmi) is a unit of length corresponding approximately to one minute of arc of latitude along any meridian. By international agreement it is exactly 1,852 metres (approximately 6,076 feet).
Oh look, it seems that nm isn’t considered a valid abbreviation for nautical miles probably due to it being such a common abbreviation for nanometres...
I’d be happy with either one alone, although just bringing beer might be too subtle.
Any lawyer worth his salt would tell his client they have no case.
And a really good lawyer would say that in a way that absolutely convinced their client that for just a little more money they could undoubtedly win the case.
I’m sorry, I couldn’t understand you... your bra seems to be in the way and no I wasn’t staring at your tits!
Hey! We’ll have no swinging, swaying, or bouncing here... that’s what the bra was for!
But do people think? What is thought?
Is an ant a sentient creature? Is an ant colony a sentient creature?
Electrons travel at the speed of light... do “holes” travel at the speed of dark?
A sizzling hot sausage just has a lot of kinetic energy... how significant is it that the average displacement happens to be basically zero? Could you cook food by putting it in a centrifuge? Can you separate elements of varying density out of a mixture by heating it?
Each of these questions has on a very basic level a very simple answer which is completely unhelpful when it comes to describing the effect of an astronomical number of these basic units acting in unison on a larger scale...
Try mentally omitting the “m” as you read. It makes it so much more interesting...
sup dawg, I herd u like %VERB%-ing so I put a %NOUN% in your %NOUN% so u could %VERB% while u %VERB%.
I think the automatic translation is a bad example, because it requires you to solve several problems, ...
No, they are intricately related to AI and are precisely why it is a very good example.
The whole reason that parsing the text syntactically is hard is because it’s not context-free and it takes a good deal of reasoning to determine their correct meaning in context.
Just look at Google translate:
Nehmen Sie das Buch nach Hause. => Take the book home
nehmen sie das buch nach hause. => they take the book home.
nehmen sie das buch nach hause => Take the book back home
nehmen, sie das buch nach hause => To take the book back home
nehmen sie, das buch nach hause => take it, the book back home
And that’s just from changing the capitalisation and punctuation! It’s obviously doing a lot more than a simple De-En dictionary reference on each word and applying a few rules to make the result sound okay according to the English rules of grammar.
(Apologies if the German was hideous, guess where it came from...)
Tongue-in-cheek, cheek-in-bra?
This new system of cheeks and bralessness could definitely bear further investigation...
Your article presented a completely different scenario, so you can’t argue that it supports your position. A conversation is not a recording, and a recording is not a conversation. That’s precisely why there have to be laws concerning whether or not or under what conditions it’s acceptable to make recordings of conversations: because conversations and recordings are completely different things and treated completely differently from a legal point of view.
If I record a message on your machine, I retain copyright on it. You have fair use rights to quote from it, but there's no "implicit transfer of ownership". That's what my citation said.
No, your citation said that someone owns a common law copyright to what they say in a private conversation. It does not say anything at all about what rights you retain if you record a message on an answering machine. If anything, my releasing the message to the public could be considered a breach of confidence, but exactly what sort of confidence is assumed in a voice mail message is not well defined from a legal point of view AFAIK. There’s no implied or explicit agreement that I can’t tell everyone what you said in your message, and replaying it is fair use under that intention.
I love Occam’s razor. Partly because it’s so simple, and partly because it’s so misunderstood. In pure mathematical terms, Occam’s razor states:
If function f is dependent only on variables x and y, don’t define an f(x, y, z).
And I for you, because the concept that he posted is mind-blowing, earth-shattering, and undeniably true on an absolute-zero sort of level. But that doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy life just like anyone else... the knowledge that happiness is only a series of unbelievably complex chemical reactions doesn’t spoil it. It actually just makes it all the more interesting. Simplicity and complexity each have their own attractiveness and I enjoy being able to see the individual trees in addition to seeing the entire forest.
Computers are also chemical and brains are also electronic. Computers can be analog and digital logic can produce analog results to any desired level of precision. A molecule that acts as a neurotransmitter carries a discrete binary signal on its own.
The primary difference between a brain and a computer (as they currently exist) is that a brain is massively (almost unimaginably) parallel in its processing and a computer is primarily serial. However it’s possible for a serial processor to emulate a parallel one given enough time in which to do it.
If that’s what he was driving at, it’s no different from the difference between my perception of the color blue and the color orange. They just trigger different chemical receptors in my eyes and my brain perceives them as different colours. And who’s even to say that my perception of blue is the same as anyone else’s? We call it the same thing, sure, but what’s to say really?
We at least all know where their heads have been, then...
And heat doesn’t really exist on an atomic level, either. It’s just atoms moving really quickly. How “real” is it exactly? Yet, on a larger scale, a baseball whacks you a quite bit differently than the burner on your stove.
Mods have a fickle sense of humour. I thought it was fairly obvious that I wrote that tongue-firmly-planted-in-cheek. Ah well... no biggie really.
Yes, and one could assume a number of other false premises as well.