Let it go to jury...
No way a jury would convict her. Doesn't matter if she technically broke the law.
Doesn't matter. A judge can nullify a jury decision when he/she considers that the jury ruled in clear disregard of the the law. I've seen this in a movie, so it's most certainly true.
Think bigger: We build millions of these things, place them next to a volcano, and use them to power a supercomputer with a neural interface. We run Minecraft on it. We attach legions of rats to said interface. Then we harvest the electricity generated by the rats' bodies. We use this electricity to power a concentrated beam of light, and use it to push a solar sail attached to a spacacraft. Then we go to Mercury, repeat, and go to Alpha Centauri. Repeat enough times, and rule the Metaverse.
I bet my watch and warrant that the same applies to the USA.
Only because it's the Internet and you know that there is no way for anyone to call you out and actually make that bet. *I* would bet that you would never put actual money on that bet.
Do you think any discussion taking place on the internet is moot because the different sides won't meet up and challenge each other? It doesn't compute, mate. Still, "I bet my watch and warrant" was just an expression, not meant to be taken literally. But I bet you already knew that. (Did you see what I did there?:D )
Perhaps instead of a witty one-liner he could have made some discussable assertions.
Some things are so evident that need no further explanation. You seem to require them, so here it goes.
Vietnam and Irak were attacked by the US. Some people think this is the US being the "world police". These people tend to be US citizens, obviously. A lot of other people (myself included, and I'm not an US citizen) think that the US has no business being the world police. Thus, I conclude the US is a danger to world peace, because whichever country pisses them off, get's whacked. USA has been at war almost constantly since WW2. I think that can be said about very few (if none) countries. You can insist in saying that's the US being the world police. I disagree. I think that's the US protecting the commercial interests of the US.
But he certainly is an atheist, and pretty much a philosopher, by my book. GP was addressing those, not philosophers of religion. Thus, I think my reference remains valid.
Even if atheist philosophers feel there are weaknesses in certain claims by their theist colleagues, they don't make accusations of mental illness and draw risible comparisons to belief in Santa, and the dialogue goes on.
Please stop trying to make a big deal out of nothing. Building a parser for HTML is non-trivial for 99% of Facebook users. No matter how easy it is nowadays for someone with enough background with computers to build one or learn how to build one, that part of "enough background" is "too much" for my grandmother and 99% of Facebook users. This fact renders it non-trivial for the end user. You are not an end-user. I'm not an end-user either.
I'll assume you and I are capable of building a parser for Outlook's PST format. My dad, however, feels like Richard Stallman (not that he knows who that is) when he writes an email and it leaves the outbox. My dad is a reasonable sample of end-user. Not you, and not me.
I'll make another wild guess: your cubicle has a sign with this bit of nerd humor: SELECT * FROM USERS WHERE CLUE > 1
Nitpick, nitpick, nitpick. How's this instead:
"Today, most everyone knows a programmer, or at least knows someone who could program a freaking HTML parser."
The point is the ability to program is not the kind of wizardry it used to be, and shouldn't be seen as some kind of barrier to using open data and source.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that parsing HTML would have been any more complex (or simple) 40 years ago? Any end-user system requiring the end-user to program an HTML parser, fails to be end-user.
I'll make a guess: 99% of the world's population does not know, and never will know, how to program a parser.
I see you're one of those rare specimens without the very common sense of humor, aren't you? I read a piece about your kind a while ago.
Since you got all sensitive and serious about it, let me tell you that I did read your post. Please quote the part that answers my concerns (not criticism, mind you) about your idea, because I didn't find it... hence, my question: please elaborate about what could possible go wrong, so I can properly asses the pros and cons of your idea, Mr. Engineer?
Hehe... I misread and I think I owe the guy an apology. On the other hand, he seems to have enjoyed the ride, so I'll take a wild guess and say he took no offense.
Slashdot Mirror
Let it go to jury... No way a jury would convict her. Doesn't matter if she technically broke the law.
Doesn't matter. A judge can nullify a jury decision when he/she considers that the jury ruled in clear disregard of the the law. I've seen this in a movie, so it's most certainly true.
Quick, everyone! Some country has a rare metal we can harvest. Grab a gun and let's invade.
bubbleverses
For the love of Seldon, don't let that term catch up.
Think bigger: We build millions of these things, place them next to a volcano, and use them to power a supercomputer with a neural interface. We run Minecraft on it. We attach legions of rats to said interface. Then we harvest the electricity generated by the rats' bodies. We use this electricity to power a concentrated beam of light, and use it to push a solar sail attached to a spacacraft. Then we go to Mercury, repeat, and go to Alpha Centauri. Repeat enough times, and rule the Metaverse.
Nuke it from Earth's surface. Sell lottery tickets to press the button. Fund new manned space missions. Problem solved.
A "good" lecture on a subject needs to only be done once.
We've had that since writing was invented.
Pakistan, that's the real threat to global peace.
I bet my watch and warrant that the same applies to the USA.
Only because it's the Internet and you know that there is no way for anyone to call you out and actually make that bet. *I* would bet that you would never put actual money on that bet.
Do you think any discussion taking place on the internet is moot because the different sides won't meet up and challenge each other? It doesn't compute, mate. Still, "I bet my watch and warrant" was just an expression, not meant to be taken literally. But I bet you already knew that. (Did you see what I did there? :D )
Perhaps instead of a witty one-liner he could have made some discussable assertions.
Some things are so evident that need no further explanation. You seem to require them, so here it goes.
Vietnam and Irak were attacked by the US. Some people think this is the US being the "world police". These people tend to be US citizens, obviously. A lot of other people (myself included, and I'm not an US citizen) think that the US has no business being the world police. Thus, I conclude the US is a danger to world peace, because whichever country pisses them off, get's whacked. USA has been at war almost constantly since WW2. I think that can be said about very few (if none) countries. You can insist in saying that's the US being the world police. I disagree. I think that's the US protecting the commercial interests of the US.
Pakistan, that's the real threat to global peace.
I bet my watch and warrant that the same applies to the USA.
note to self: steer clear of monkeys.
You're doing it wrong, mate. Steer at monkeys, hit them, and save the day, Bruce Willis style.
Are you suggesting they had sex with the infected monkeys?
Richard Dawkins isn't a philosopher of religion.
But he certainly is an atheist, and pretty much a philosopher, by my book. GP was addressing those, not philosophers of religion. Thus, I think my reference remains valid.
Even if atheist philosophers feel there are weaknesses in certain claims by their theist colleagues, they don't make accusations of mental illness and draw risible comparisons to belief in Santa, and the dialogue goes on.
Mr. Richard Dawkins might disagree with you, my friend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfcYRKk0sa8
Nouns get verbed all the time.
True, but in the title of the summary ("The Science of Human-Robot Love"), "love" is a noun.
'Love' is a verb, by the way, unless you're referring to a concept that embodies the actions of 'love'. 'Love' is not an emotion.
"To love" is a verb. "Love" is a noun.
Please stop trying to make a big deal out of nothing. Building a parser for HTML is non-trivial for 99% of Facebook users. No matter how easy it is nowadays for someone with enough background with computers to build one or learn how to build one, that part of "enough background" is "too much" for my grandmother and 99% of Facebook users. This fact renders it non-trivial for the end user. You are not an end-user. I'm not an end-user either.
I'll assume you and I are capable of building a parser for Outlook's PST format. My dad, however, feels like Richard Stallman (not that he knows who that is) when he writes an email and it leaves the outbox. My dad is a reasonable sample of end-user. Not you, and not me.
I'll make another wild guess: your cubicle has a sign with this bit of nerd humor: SELECT * FROM USERS WHERE CLUE > 1
Nitpick, nitpick, nitpick. How's this instead: "Today, most everyone knows a programmer, or at least knows someone who could program a freaking HTML parser."
The point is the ability to program is not the kind of wizardry it used to be, and shouldn't be seen as some kind of barrier to using open data and source.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that parsing HTML would have been any more complex (or simple) 40 years ago? Any end-user system requiring the end-user to program an HTML parser, fails to be end-user.
I'll make a guess: 99% of the world's population does not know, and never will know, how to program a parser.
Building a parser to grab the HTML document into a database or spreadsheet would be trivial.
Trivial as in my grandmother could do it?
I see you're one of those rare specimens without the very common sense of humor, aren't you? I read a piece about your kind a while ago.
Since you got all sensitive and serious about it, let me tell you that I did read your post. Please quote the part that answers my concerns (not criticism, mind you) about your idea, because I didn't find it... hence, my question: please elaborate about what could possible go wrong, so I can properly asses the pros and cons of your idea, Mr. Engineer?
pointed down at the Earth
What could possibly go wrong?
If you want software made for every handicap known to man, write it yourself. There are no "ethical issues".
Such an opinion such not be posted as AC. We can't trash you properly.
Probably no one. That's why he has the luxury of being judgmental.
I'm a practicing anesthesiologist.
You should have started with that, Mr. Smartypants.
Rumor has it that many, many Soviet soldiers would take a half-shot of ether whenever they wanted to have a good evening...
My bad, your rumor about Russian drunks clearly proves me wrong.
Hehe... I misread and I think I owe the guy an apology. On the other hand, he seems to have enjoyed the ride, so I'll take a wild guess and say he took no offense.