I had two crowns fitted a few weeks ago in France, and I didn't get any RFID-card given to me... So I'm not sure how far ahead of reality this info is.
(This post comes to you from an aging. French-resident/.er)
The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game which we call the "imitation game." It is played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart from the other two. The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman. He knows them by labels X and Y, and at the end of the game he says either "X is A and Y is B" or "X is B and Y is A." The interrogator is allowed to put questions to A and B.
The idea of identifying gender, rather than human or not human, is actually much more subtle than might be at first realised. He of course meant this to be extended as we all nowadays quote the test, but the original idea is subtly elegant... He was tackling the problem from the other direction: forget a computer pretending to be "intelligent", but what do we mean by "thinking" - If a man can "pretend" to be a woman, as per his test, what does that prove? That he is a woman?! Of course not... Thus was does it mean to be a woman, etc etc - Turing was a genius with amazing insight and perception.
Well I admit to being a big fan of Richard Dawkins. I think you might appreciate another quote of his:
"The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion. If a physicist says God is another name for Planck's constant, or God is a superstring, we should take it as a picturesque metaphorical way of saying that the nature of superstrings or the value of Planck's constant is a profound mystery. It has obviously not the smallest connection with a being capable of forgiving sins, a being who might listen to prayers, who cares about whether or not the Sabbath begins at 5pm or 6pm, whether you wear a veil or have a bit of arm showing; and no connection whatever with a being capable of imposing a death penalty on His son to expiate the sins of the world before and after he was born. "
"It is often said, mainly by the "no-contests", that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"
How true. Don't you find it odd how many "educated" people will not just admit that they know nothing about science or maths, but seem positively proud of it?
"Oh, I'm really uselesss at maths" is apparently quite alright for an otherwise educated graduate. Imagine a scientist boasting "Oh I'm so ignorant about literature" - people would (rightly or wrongly) look down their noses at such an admission. But the inumerate boast? "Oh yes, me too!" - it's socially quite acceptable...
It's sad that the authorities try and dress this up as somehow good - when the real motivation behind it is disgraceful.
Standard disclaimer: sex offenders deserve whatever punishment the law deems fit. But, and this is what is forgotten, IF the authorities deem them fit to be released from custody, then it's because (or should be because) they are no longer a threat. If they are a threat, then keep them incarcerated. Don't let them out and then pretend it's OK to publish their name, address, etc. It's hypocritical.
And why stop at sex offenders? Say I have no kids, but an expensive car? Shouldn't I be able to know that the guy next door was convicted of stealing cars? I'm not equating car theft with sex offences, but I do believe that the law should treat all people equally.
If a sex offender ia a threat, keep the bastard in jail. Don't let him out and think that by posting his details on the internet that all will be well. All it does is victimize reformed offenders (who do exist...) and encourage vigilantes - neither of these is good.
Let's get this clear: they used a really really really really powerful radar, and then found that the ice "wasn't there". Uh huh. But now the moon does have strange clouds of water vapour... Whoops.
He seems to understand (or imply) that the GPL is something that sneaked out of the woodwork and crept up on these companies AFTER they had innocently and reasonably taken a lump of code and developed a product with it.
He does not make clear that these companies would have been completely aware that they were taking an existing software product which, like all others, would have a license attached. Basic due diligence would then mean that the license should be read and complied with.
The GPL did not come along and ambush these companies - they CHOSE to make use of GPL software. So tough-titty to them.
Not that it really matters, but it's actually two Russians and a Brit (although two of them do hold dual citizenship with the US).
Point is, if you're going to bother mentioning it in the story, then get it right. Otherwise (maybe better) don't mention it as it doesn't really matter...
Now we'll get terrorists not ordering special meals (which I'm very certain they normally do - heck, when you're on a suicide mission you want to make sure you have a nice snack).
That then means that the cabin crew will have to keep a look out for anyone who does not finish their meal.
"Captain, there's a man in Row 3 who won't eat his pork sausage". "Yeah, shoot the bastard". "Yes, but he could be a friendly Jew, not a fiendish Moslem" "Hmm, good point. Offer him a beer first"
No, *this* is not Offtopic, and the parent is *not* Flamebait. Which idiot Mod thinks it is? Come on, show yourself now or pray I don't find you in meta-mod.
For someone who writes things like "I would have thought" and "That's what seems to make sense" I don't think you are in a position to posture on logic. In what way, exactly, is that poster's logic flawed?
Slashdot Mirror
I had two crowns fitted a few weeks ago in France, and I didn't get any RFID-card given to me... So I'm not sure how far ahead of reality this info is.
/.er)
(This post comes to you from an aging. French-resident
FYI much of Africa has, for several weeks now, been suffering from a extraordinary plague of locusts.
n _correspondent/3689808.stm
e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_ow
What's that little rhyme about "Electric clocks convey to you, precisely when your fuses blew." :-)
Yeah, but 1984 was written before 1984 as well. Oh, wait a minute...
The idea of identifying gender, rather than human or not human, is actually much more subtle than might be at first realised. He of course meant this to be extended as we all nowadays quote the test, but the original idea is subtly elegant... He was tackling the problem from the other direction: forget a computer pretending to be "intelligent", but what do we mean by "thinking" - If a man can "pretend" to be a woman, as per his test, what does that prove? That he is a woman?! Of course not... Thus was does it mean to be a woman, etc etc - Turing was a genius with amazing insight and perception.
What a loss.
...birthday presents (a vibrator), taken the wrong way and ...
Indeed. A vibrator taken the wrong way can bring tears to the eyes, I am sure.
"Debbie does Dallas" becomes a 3-second feature...
No. There are exactly 126 Class A addresses. They probably DO have a Class A, if their claim is correct, but there are not 256 of them, just 126...
Well I admit to being a big fan of Richard Dawkins. I think you might appreciate another quote of his:
"The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion. If a physicist says God is another name for Planck's constant, or God is a superstring, we should take it as a picturesque metaphorical way of saying that the nature of superstrings or the value of Planck's constant is a profound mystery. It has obviously not the smallest connection with a being capable of forgiving sins, a being who might listen to prayers, who cares about whether or not the Sabbath begins at 5pm or 6pm, whether you wear a veil or have a bit of arm showing; and no connection whatever with a being capable of imposing a death penalty on His son to expiate the sins of the world before and after he was born. "
What I'd give to write like him!!
Hooray for Richard Dawkins:
"It is often said, mainly by the "no-contests", that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"
JC being John Cleese, I assume ? ;-)
Splitters!
Stop support of European languages? Where do you think English comes from, eh?? Doh!!
I'm intrigued by how you stop people putting you into their address books...?
How true. Don't you find it odd how many "educated" people will not just admit that they know nothing about science or maths, but seem positively proud of it?
"Oh, I'm really uselesss at maths" is apparently quite alright for an otherwise educated graduate. Imagine a scientist boasting "Oh I'm so ignorant about literature" - people would (rightly or wrongly) look down their noses at such an admission. But the inumerate boast? "Oh yes, me too!" - it's socially quite acceptable...
Sad.
Do tell more about the Nortel Contivity stack - we're all eager to share in your expert knowledge.
It's sad that the authorities try and dress this up as somehow good - when the real motivation behind it is disgraceful.
Standard disclaimer: sex offenders deserve whatever punishment the law deems fit. But, and this is what is forgotten, IF the authorities deem them fit to be released from custody, then it's because (or should be because) they are no longer a threat. If they are a threat, then keep them incarcerated. Don't let them out and then pretend it's OK to publish their name, address, etc. It's hypocritical.
And why stop at sex offenders? Say I have no kids, but an expensive car? Shouldn't I be able to know that the guy next door was convicted of stealing cars? I'm not equating car theft with sex offences, but I do believe that the law should treat all people equally.
If a sex offender ia a threat, keep the bastard in jail. Don't let him out and think that by posting his details on the internet that all will be well. All it does is victimize reformed offenders (who do exist...) and encourage vigilantes - neither of these is good.
Let's get this clear: they used a really really really really powerful radar, and then found that the ice "wasn't there". Uh huh. But now the moon does have strange clouds of water vapour... Whoops.
He seems to understand (or imply) that the GPL is something that sneaked out of the woodwork and crept up on these companies AFTER they had innocently and reasonably taken a lump of code and developed a product with it.
He does not make clear that these companies would have been completely aware that they were taking an existing software product which, like all others, would have a license attached. Basic due diligence would then mean that the license should be read and complied with.
The GPL did not come along and ambush these companies - they CHOSE to make use of GPL software. So tough-titty to them.
Not that it really matters, but it's actually two Russians and a Brit (although two of them do hold dual citizenship with the US).
Point is, if you're going to bother mentioning it in the story, then get it right. Otherwise (maybe better) don't mention it as it doesn't really matter...
Now we'll get terrorists not ordering special meals (which I'm very certain they normally do - heck, when you're on a suicide mission you want to make sure you have a nice snack).
That then means that the cabin crew will have to keep a look out for anyone who does not finish their meal.
"Captain, there's a man in Row 3 who won't eat his pork sausage".
"Yeah, shoot the bastard".
"Yes, but he could be a friendly Jew, not a fiendish Moslem"
"Hmm, good point. Offer him a beer first"
No, *this* is not Offtopic, and the parent is *not* Flamebait. Which idiot Mod thinks it is? Come on, show yourself now or pray I don't find you in meta-mod.
Good idea! Banning the ability to think ahead more than 2 moves is probably the only way I'm ever going to win a game of chess against most people...!
Four color theorem.
...the logic is incredibly flawed.
For someone who writes things like "I would have thought" and "That's what seems to make sense" I don't think you are in a position to posture on logic. In what way, exactly, is that poster's logic flawed?