The answer is of course yes, a machine that occasionally has the need to release built up pressure already exists. Of course your point is absurd, but I also wanted to point out that if that was somehow some critical component to the design it would be a complete non-issue anyway.
Nobody but you is claiming the A in AI stands for "actual", but your faux expertise on this subject found all over in these comments make me wonder if you have any "actual intelligence."
We are machines and we can "do understanding" so clearly your claim that machines can't "do understanding" is proved already to be false. People said that everything we are doing today with technology could never be done. Claiming something can never be done is a claim that is as easily made as it is foolish to assert.
There is nothing going on here that hasn't been done with proprietary software. I can't charge for Windows, but I can charge to install it and help companies choose other software and install and configure that, as well as for training and troubleshooting.
Stop pretending you are the next Stallman. Eating your own toe cheese doesn't make you an eclectic genius. It makes you a wannabe who doesn't grasp the situation. Digital copies of books are more easily proliferated and even more "impossible" to be eradicated. DRM is always defeated by someone, and luckily only one person needs to defeat it.
I don't even want to know what goes on in someone's brain who can read about this research and can conclude that it will replace passwords anytime soon. For one thing the mind changes over time so we don't even have reason to believe that this unique response will remain static over time. Then there is the issue of industry adoption, not to mention the minor detail of needing to strap electrodes to your head connected to what is no doubt bulky and expensive hardware.
Trump recently condescend acts of violence and called for Unity. What is your point? That they should be able to support and enable hate speech as long as they say somewhere on their site that they don't?
The summary alone cited several subhumans that use it, so that's already more than one. If you don't think Gab is a cesspool filled with scum then guess what... You are also scum.
I am dealing serious when I say that I appreciate Stallman's contributions, but I'm equally serious when I say I can't imagine anyone wants to touch him.
I said I didn't bother reading your whole comment, as is also true this time. You like making shit up obviously, like claims about being competent for example.
You think you "won" your argument. You are too stupid to figure out that nothing could be further from the truth. And no, just as with your "scrotumd" comment, I didn't waste my time reading beyond that statement. When you can admit that you are a phenomenal dumbfuck feel free to reply.
No, it doesn't. In order for it to have anything to do with your point it would have to have been modified *after* you hit submit, and the reason would have had to have been something nefarious.
Slashdot Mirror
The answer is of course yes, a machine that occasionally has the need to release built up pressure already exists. Of course your point is absurd, but I also wanted to point out that if that was somehow some critical component to the design it would be a complete non-issue anyway.
It's a shame that you assumed that we have to know that in order to acheive the goal.
Of course we are machines running wetware. To believe otherwise shows a remarkable dearth of self-awareness.
Nobody but you is claiming the A in AI stands for "actual", but your faux expertise on this subject found all over in these comments make me wonder if you have any "actual intelligence."
We are machines and we can "do understanding" so clearly your claim that machines can't "do understanding" is proved already to be false. People said that everything we are doing today with technology could never be done. Claiming something can never be done is a claim that is as easily made as it is foolish to assert.
There is nothing going on here that hasn't been done with proprietary software. I can't charge for Windows, but I can charge to install it and help companies choose other software and install and configure that, as well as for training and troubleshooting.
Stop pretending you are the next Stallman. Eating your own toe cheese doesn't make you an eclectic genius. It makes you a wannabe who doesn't grasp the situation. Digital copies of books are more easily proliferated and even more "impossible" to be eradicated. DRM is always defeated by someone, and luckily only one person needs to defeat it.
You are very confused. I didn't dehumanize them. They dehumanized themselves.
I don't even want to know what goes on in someone's brain who can read about this research and can conclude that it will replace passwords anytime soon. For one thing the mind changes over time so we don't even have reason to believe that this unique response will remain static over time. Then there is the issue of industry adoption, not to mention the minor detail of needing to strap electrodes to your head connected to what is no doubt bulky and expensive hardware.
If you think Visual studio will ever be the preferred development environment for Linux you should seek psychiatric help.
IPtables isn't a user application. You are either too stupid to figure that out or being intentionally ingenuous.
You posted as AC and the other person used an actual account. Whom to believe? It is so hard to decide!
Your assumption that "Windows will be used in the workforce" 15 years from now is at best laughable.
Trump recently condescend acts of violence and called for Unity. What is your point? That they should be able to support and enable hate speech as long as they say somewhere on their site that they don't?
Yes! We must protect subhuman scumbaggery at all cost!
The summary alone cited several subhumans that use it, so that's already more than one. If you don't think Gab is a cesspool filled with scum then guess what ... You are also scum.
I am dealing serious when I say that I appreciate Stallman's contributions, but I'm equally serious when I say I can't imagine anyone wants to touch him.
Anyone can challenge anyone. That doesn't change the fact that what I wrote is correct.
No, it would not, just as breaking up a document into TCP packets before transmitting it does not, they can be reassembled on the receiving end.
NPR tweeted the US Constitution in it's entirety, tweet after tweet after tweet. So yes, it is possible.
I said I didn't bother reading your whole comment, as is also true this time. You like making shit up obviously, like claims about being competent for example.
You think you "won" your argument. You are too stupid to figure out that nothing could be further from the truth. And no, just as with your "scrotumd" comment, I didn't waste my time reading beyond that statement. When you can admit that you are a phenomenal dumbfuck feel free to reply.
Anyone who asks "What was wrong with the single blade" has never used a 5 blade razor. The multiple blade razor is far, far better.
No, it doesn't. In order for it to have anything to do with your point it would have to have been modified *after* you hit submit, and the reason would have had to have been something nefarious.
I read your post up to "scrotumd". Thank you for making it clear early in the post that you a child and reading further would be a waste of time.