Turn off your voicemail and have a message saying to send you a text.
No good... it blocks anyone who is calling from a landline and has no ability to text.
This eliminates most spammers and prevents you from having to spend time trying to decipher a voicemail.
It also eliminates people who hang up as soon as they hear a recording because they happen to be uncomfortable talking to what they know is a machine. The fact that they wouldn't have to leave a message is irrelevant because they haven't listened that far.
I'm pretty sure that the earth isn't going to be spinning anymore once it's been engulfed by the expanding sun. It's not going to be doing anything anything.
That's my understanding as well... my point was only that the truth of any allegedly defamatory remarks may not always be sufficient to defend a defamation lawsuit, particularly when there is a malicious or mischievous intent, and is therefore *not* really bulletproof by itself/
Of course, if even truth of one's remarks isn't going to defend them from a defamation lawsuit, then I doubt anything will... so in that respect, it remains unconditionally the best single defense there can possibly be.
if the creators of gimp weren't willing to change the name of the software to prevent appearing insensitive, what makes you think that Git's name would get changed?
And what do you do if you had intended to accept calls from unlisted parties where no identifying information is transmitted?
All you can do is not answer the phone, forcing the caller to leave a message (which a robocaller will often do, filling up space on your voice mail and taking up just as much time to purge it as it would to answer the phone and hang up), whereas plenty of human callers may end up not leaving a message at all because of a preference for full duplex communication.
It's my understanding that in the UK, if some allegedly defamatory publication or pronouncement results in what is considered a "breach of peace", unless there was some demonstrable public benefit brought about by the revelation, or unless there was some reasonable intent to provide public benefit, then the truth behind allegedly defamatory claims alone may not necessarily be sufficient as a defense against a defamation suit. This is, to the best of my understanding, more or less the same as it is in the USA for defamation. The most significant difference between UK and USA law in this regard is in which side, either the defendant or the plaintiff, the obligation falls to prove their claim (US and UK are opposing in this regard), not in whether how effective truth of one's claims might be as a defense for their position.
But in general, in both jurisdictions, truth is far and away the most consistently reliable justification for allegedly defamatory remarks. It is only my assertion that it is not entirely bulletproof, especially if there was some kind of mischievous or malicious intent behind the claims.
Truth is generally considered the *best* defense against an accusation of defamation, but if the comments were made with any obvious malice or superfluously so as to cause harm where none should have reasonably occurred, then truth alone will not necessarily be adequate.
I have heard of one case in the USA involving an employee of a company who was terminated for reasons that might have superficially seemed as if he had been caught stealing from the company when that was not the case. The company had published a notice that had gone out to many individuals in the company who ultimately had no business knowing the exact reasons for his dismissal and had thereby effectively colored his reputation as a criminal even though the company did not come outright and say this. He sued for defamation. The company had been entirely truthful... they had not said anything about him that was actually false or even unproven, but others had been historically let go from the same company for similar grounds as him on occasion and no such mass sendout notice was made on those other occasions, so the judge determined that in this case, the company had been unfairly malicious in publishing that notice and ruled in favor of the individual.
Bulletproof against libel perhaps... but truth is not always a defense against defamation. There have been rare precedents where a person was found to be telling the truth, but still lost a defamation case.
That said, truth remains the most consistently reliable defense to such a suit, but one should be aware that extenuating circumstances may exist where that defense will not be sufficient. In particular, if the comments are found to have been made with deliberate malice and intent to cause harm, truth of their statements will not necessarily be sufficient to stave a lawsuit.
Google the phrase when is truth not a defense to defamation, and you can probably find at least one example of USA precedent in the match or two.
Or perhaps, more likely, he considers that any technical merits which Photoshop might have over an alternative product do not outweigh Photoshop's own inferiority to the alternative simply by virtue of it being subscription-based.
It's a subjective thing obviously.... but note that the person to whom you responded did not attempt to convince anyone else to hold their opinion, they simply asserted what their own priorities were - that in that person's own opinion, Adobe's policies of subscriptions on its software far outweigh how otherwise superior it might be to alternatives. And speaking for myself, I happen to agree.
As I read it, they are actually deprecating the API's, which I would take to mean that while existing applications will continue to work, any (new) applications that utilize them will not pass the criteria for approval.
I said that they don't evolve on their own, but that's not the same thing as not evolving at all. Or do you think that the term is invalid outside of any context of reproductive evolution?
We can't 'direct' something that we don't understand
Well, it's only true to say that we don't understand it fully. That's not the same thing as saying we don't understand it at all. And it's certainly not the same thing as saying that we are necessarily far away from understanding it sufficiently to artificially replicate it.
I mean, starting from the time that man started building machines, we managed to create flying machines in a barely negligible *fraction* of the time that it took nature to pull it off, for instance.
Again, given that nature managed to create something intelligent within a a billion or so years without *ANY* intelligence applied to the process whatsoever, I'd suggest that's not a far stretch to suggest that we might be able to outpace it in that regard as well.
Machines evolve.... that they don't do so by entirely natural processes on their own is immaterial.
Just look at the past 50 years of computing... you can't tell me that machines don't evolve. The fact that we are the ones evolving them is immaterial.
My point is that I expect that an intelligence-directed course of evolution should be much faster than an undirected one... so I don't think there's any reason that we won't see AI happen some day, and it might not be even very long form now. Honestly, I'd say that I'd be surprised if we still don't have it by the end of this century except that I'll probably be dead by then unless I live to be about 140.
Well, natural evolution was undirected... I don't think it's a far reach that an already existing intelligence directing some new inteliigence's course may be able to expedite that duration by many orders of magnitude.
Just how do you block calls that don't transmit any identifying information for call display purposes but still want to accept calls from numbers that might not be listed?
And of course, there's the fact that when the number does show up, it's different every single time. I'd have to block over a thousand new numbers every year because they are always different when they are not showing up as unlisted.
2. Would fully adopt (as much as anyone other than Mozilla is) open web standards from the browser to all corporate products...
Guess you didn't try Edge yet..
While Edge is not as conformant as some browsers like Chrome when it comes to standards conformance, they are still doing pretty good in that department. Last time I heard, they had a conformance score of 492/555, and is continually rising with each new version, For comparison, Chrome's conformance score is 528, while Firefox is 491, Safari is 471, and IE's best ever score was 312.
Edge has it's share of problems, but in practice they are not often any worse overall than those found in most other modern browsers.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but I also said interstellar, not merely interplanetary.
No good... it blocks anyone who is calling from a landline and has no ability to text.
It also eliminates people who hang up as soon as they hear a recording because they happen to be uncomfortable talking to what they know is a machine. The fact that they wouldn't have to leave a message is irrelevant because they haven't listened that far.
I was saying interstellar, not merely interplanetary. Obviously we will be interplanetary much sooner.
Barring extinction by some event before then, I have little doubt we will be a fully interstellar species before the next turn of the millennium.
I'm pretty sure that the earth isn't going to be spinning anymore once it's been engulfed by the expanding sun. It's not going to be doing anything anything.
That's my understanding as well... my point was only that the truth of any allegedly defamatory remarks may not always be sufficient to defend a defamation lawsuit, particularly when there is a malicious or mischievous intent, and is therefore *not* really bulletproof by itself/
Of course, if even truth of one's remarks isn't going to defend them from a defamation lawsuit, then I doubt anything will... so in that respect, it remains unconditionally the best single defense there can possibly be.
if the creators of gimp weren't willing to change the name of the software to prevent appearing insensitive, what makes you think that Git's name would get changed?
And what do you do if you had intended to accept calls from unlisted parties where no identifying information is transmitted?
All you can do is not answer the phone, forcing the caller to leave a message (which a robocaller will often do, filling up space on your voice mail and taking up just as much time to purge it as it would to answer the phone and hang up), whereas plenty of human callers may end up not leaving a message at all because of a preference for full duplex communication.
It's still generally the best defense, however... and probably 999 times out of a thousand would be entirely sufficient.
It's my understanding that in the UK, if some allegedly defamatory publication or pronouncement results in what is considered a "breach of peace", unless there was some demonstrable public benefit brought about by the revelation, or unless there was some reasonable intent to provide public benefit, then the truth behind allegedly defamatory claims alone may not necessarily be sufficient as a defense against a defamation suit. This is, to the best of my understanding, more or less the same as it is in the USA for defamation. The most significant difference between UK and USA law in this regard is in which side, either the defendant or the plaintiff, the obligation falls to prove their claim (US and UK are opposing in this regard), not in whether how effective truth of one's claims might be as a defense for their position.
But in general, in both jurisdictions, truth is far and away the most consistently reliable justification for allegedly defamatory remarks. It is only my assertion that it is not entirely bulletproof, especially if there was some kind of mischievous or malicious intent behind the claims.
Truth is generally considered the *best* defense against an accusation of defamation, but if the comments were made with any obvious malice or superfluously so as to cause harm where none should have reasonably occurred, then truth alone will not necessarily be adequate.
I have heard of one case in the USA involving an employee of a company who was terminated for reasons that might have superficially seemed as if he had been caught stealing from the company when that was not the case. The company had published a notice that had gone out to many individuals in the company who ultimately had no business knowing the exact reasons for his dismissal and had thereby effectively colored his reputation as a criminal even though the company did not come outright and say this. He sued for defamation. The company had been entirely truthful... they had not said anything about him that was actually false or even unproven, but others had been historically let go from the same company for similar grounds as him on occasion and no such mass sendout notice was made on those other occasions, so the judge determined that in this case, the company had been unfairly malicious in publishing that notice and ruled in favor of the individual.
Bulletproof against libel perhaps... but truth is not always a defense against defamation. There have been rare precedents where a person was found to be telling the truth, but still lost a defamation case.
That said, truth remains the most consistently reliable defense to such a suit, but one should be aware that extenuating circumstances may exist where that defense will not be sufficient. In particular, if the comments are found to have been made with deliberate malice and intent to cause harm, truth of their statements will not necessarily be sufficient to stave a lawsuit.
Google the phrase when is truth not a defense to defamation, and you can probably find at least one example of USA precedent in the match or two.
Or perhaps, more likely, he considers that any technical merits which Photoshop might have over an alternative product do not outweigh Photoshop's own inferiority to the alternative simply by virtue of it being subscription-based.
It's a subjective thing obviously.... but note that the person to whom you responded did not attempt to convince anyone else to hold their opinion, they simply asserted what their own priorities were - that in that person's own opinion, Adobe's policies of subscriptions on its software far outweigh how otherwise superior it might be to alternatives. And speaking for myself, I happen to agree.
We were talking about the mac, though.
As I read it, they are actually deprecating the API's, which I would take to mean that while existing applications will continue to work, any (new) applications that utilize them will not pass the criteria for approval.
So now we have *THREE* "standards"?
(insert profanity laden outburst reminiscent of Steve Martin's scene in Trains Planes and Automobiles when his rented car is stolen).
Does anybody know? What was the holdup? Certainly it couldn't have been difficult to implement, could it?
I said that they don't evolve on their own, but that's not the same thing as not evolving at all. Or do you think that the term is invalid outside of any context of reproductive evolution?
Well, it's only true to say that we don't understand it fully. That's not the same thing as saying we don't understand it at all. And it's certainly not the same thing as saying that we are necessarily far away from understanding it sufficiently to artificially replicate it.
I mean, starting from the time that man started building machines, we managed to create flying machines in a barely negligible *fraction* of the time that it took nature to pull it off, for instance.
Again, given that nature managed to create something intelligent within a a billion or so years without *ANY* intelligence applied to the process whatsoever, I'd suggest that's not a far stretch to suggest that we might be able to outpace it in that regard as well.
Machines evolve.... that they don't do so by entirely natural processes on their own is immaterial.
Just look at the past 50 years of computing... you can't tell me that machines don't evolve. The fact that we are the ones evolving them is immaterial.
My point is that I expect that an intelligence-directed course of evolution should be much faster than an undirected one... so I don't think there's any reason that we won't see AI happen some day, and it might not be even very long form now. Honestly, I'd say that I'd be surprised if we still don't have it by the end of this century except that I'll probably be dead by then unless I live to be about 140.
Well, natural evolution was undirected... I don't think it's a far reach that an already existing intelligence directing some new inteliigence's course may be able to expedite that duration by many orders of magnitude.
Nature managed to do it, supposedly without understanding anything about what it was doing.
Maybe it stops the cell phone from emitting radiation so that women who keep their phone in their cleavage won't get breast cancer anymore?
Just how do you block calls that don't transmit any identifying information for call display purposes but still want to accept calls from numbers that might not be listed?
And of course, there's the fact that when the number does show up, it's different every single time. I'd have to block over a thousand new numbers every year because they are always different when they are not showing up as unlisted.