Ugh, put away your high school biology text book and at least read the damned synopsis.
Yes, I can read.
The problem is simply this. You are engaging in a form of circular reasoning. "Assuming there is a selective advantage" Well, yes, obviously. But in that case, no need for a sick macaque to start the ball rolling, bipedalism would already be the norm through natural selection. And if there isn't a selective advantage to bipedalism, then children imitating their bipedal parent would find themselves losing the evolutionary race. Throughout the animal kingdom there tends to be very strong avoidance instincts when it comes to picking a potential mate who even appears to be slightly sick. (What's your natural urge when you see someone who has been stricken with polio? Or MS? Is it to imitate them? To mate them?) So imitating a sick parent is an almost guaranteed losing strategy, evolutionarily speaking.
Indeed. They could register 10,000 domain names for approx. US$50,000/yr, which is "don't even bother to pick it up if it drops out of your pocket" change to Microsoft.
I was going to mod you down but decided to respond instead.
Your comment is 100% FUD. Suddenly it's bad that Google is archiving newsgroups? It's not only Google's fault that you posted binaries in the first place, and that you were too dumb to use X-no-archive, but that you can't figure out how to follow their procedure for removing old posts?
And why do you put the word "offer" in scare quotes? Are you implying it's not really an offer, it's something else of unknown malevolence? Look. Google is, above all, a business, not a public service. Yes, they may do unknown, evil twisted things with your email. Poring through it with their grubby little computers, applying their sick, patented algorithms to search for phrases, using your most private thoughts for nefarious adword-enabling purposes. Those bastards!!11!! But hey, here's a clue. Don't sign up for GMail if that's your concern. End of story. There's no reason why their behavior should start to "really disquiet and annoy" you unless you have one of those psychological compulsions that prevents you from turning down free shit.
Maybe you shouldn't post here either. You might say something you regret in 20 years. Oh, too late!
Exactly. In fact, a cynical person might even suppose that the very reason for these new proposed regulations is to do away with one potential objection to the new restrictive copyright regime: "We the people need to be able to tape shows to keep a record of any inaccuracies/indecencies." No you don't, Chairman Powell's saying, not anymore. Rather clever, innit?
Me thinks the Business Software Alliance are jumping on the bandwagon and vilifying P2P networks just as the Senate is taking aim at P2P providers."
The irony being, of course, that the vast majority of their claimed losses are outside the US, where a United States P2P ban would have absolutely no effect.
This being Starbucks, a large proportion of their clientele are gonna have iPods, so they really ought to have co-branded iTMS kiosks on site, with special deals prominently featured. E.g., they could sell a "mocha mix" of songs, 10 for 5 bucks, that would have 5 songs you pick yourself mixed in with 5 preselected "freebies" picked for you by StarApple's marketing arm. Or maybe a "3 songs and a latte combo". Or some other creative deal that doesn't isn't limited by physical media.
Obviously YMMV but the #1 reason why I'm not about to ditch my SD/Flash based MPIO player is that it takes standard AAA batteries. I like knowing that I can listen to my music all day long if I so choose without worrying about bringing a cradle or USB cord along with me. Not to mention that the MPIO is much smaller than even an iPod Mini. Although I'd consider the latter if it had a version that worked with standard batteries.
Listen, we can forgive you for being racist, but not for being dumb. How do you think normal auto/medical/homeowners etc. insurance works? If you make too many claims, your insurance rate goes way up, or you might even be deemed uninsurable. Regardless of whether or not you are in a protected class. So why should this be different for PSP type insurance? (Furthermore, discrimination claims don't work the way that you seem to think they do. The "disparate impact" if the defendant can't show a reasonable neutral explanation for the practice which leads to differing outcomes.)
I think your parent poster has a good idea, just so long as it effectively states in the policy that if BB deems you have excessively or frivolously used its insurance, or for any other reason, it may choose at its own discretion to deny you future insurance coverage.
if organisms truly are found on Saturn, the space race is going to really pick up speed within the next few years.
Three possible beneficiaries of Titanian space race:
1) Big Pharma - Think of the patents, man! 2) Defense Industry - There must be some way to "weaponize" a microbe that survives at -180C. 3) Big Oil -- Excuse me, did you just say hydrocarbons ?
Of course, your tax dollars will bankroll any exploration. Don't expect to see any of the profits, though.
In Europe, DVD+RW products have captured a 76 percent share of the DVD market, while DVD-RW and DVD-RAM have 14 percent and 10 percent, respectively. In the United States, DVD+RW has a 72 percent market share, while 19 percent goes to DVD-RW and 9 percent to DVD-RAM.
Most makers contacted have adopted DVD plus. Wu Xiang-chun, a representative from the overseas division of Amoi, pointed out that a uniform standard will boost the industry. Wu predicted that the format debate will be settled by year's end.
Most makers in Taiwan produce recorders that only support the DVD+RW recording format, although some dual models support both DVD plus and DVD minus. DivX can also be supported depending on the chipset used to build the DVD recorder.
What SCOTUS also did was take away your right to refuse to answer in any state that does have such a law.
You mean to say, there's a law, and you actually have to obey it? How dare they! Next they'll make you pay taxes and recycle, those ivory tower bastards.
Really, the best cure for a bad law is to get rid of that law. Not to resort to an appeal from on high. Because, as you can see, that can easily cut both ways. And there is no appeal from a SCOTUS decision.
And the Republinazis who control Congress
Yeah, those Republinazis and billionaires control everything. Including the Supremes. I guess, game over then. Might as well just give up, eh?
Let's get straight what's going on here. The Supreme Court didn't say that cops now have a constitutional right to ask for your name any time. What SCOTUS did was uphold (within certain vague limits) a Nevada law requiring you to give your name to cops upon being stopped and questioned. Since it's just a law, it can be repealed by the Nevada legislature. Who are put into office by the voters of Nevada. They can set themselves free, instead of hoping for the almighty Supreme Court to do so. Imagine that.
Well, I'll give them half a point for successfully sabotaging the DVD Forum's little monopoly grab with their DVD+RW format. But I'll take away half a point for their miserable failure in introducing the misbegotten DCC.
The issue of Schmerber v. California which is relevant to my objection is that it involved a DWI accident. It wasn't merely a random or gratuitous stop, which more recent rulings by SCOTUS show are not allowed under the 4th amendment. See e.g., City of Indianapolis v Edmond.
Nevertheless, I'll grant you that it is rather frightening that Schermber strictly allows for involuntary bodily violations, regardless of the circumstances, and overall I don't doubt that a further expansion of California's DNA database will have no problem passing constitutional muster. Scary.
I'll be sure to look further into this model legislation you mention.
Look, let's be clear. You pulled that out of your ass.
The truth is that "implied consent" laws don't give the cops carte blanche to take a blood sample.
For example, in California, the cops must charge you with DUI or other violation or have a reasonable suspicion that you are intoxicated. They can't just stop you on a whim and ask you for a blood sample. And yes, implied consent exists, but contrary to what you stated, there is no "use of force" authorized. However, you will have your license suspended and face jail time if the offense is upheld. (Note, California laws are particularly stringent - AFAIK not all states have will give you jail time for merely refusing to take the test. Also, even in California, bloodwork is currently taken to test for drug/alcohol content, not for DNA samples.)
> YMMV
Ha-ha. Indeed.
So in sum, there is a kernel of truth in what you are saying, but in reality things are not nearly so dire.
I am talking solely about creating a robot that can recognise itself within a mirror.
But when you say that, you are glossing over the whole concept of what "recognition" is. For example, my computer responds when I type on its keyboard. Does that mean it "recognizes" that it is being typed upon? I think you'd agree that unless I have a much more advanced OS than Linux or Windows, my PC isn't "recognizing" anything, it's just responding. So when we say a robot can "recognize" itself in a mirror, do we mean that it can identify the parts that belong to it, or do we mean that it can reflect upon its reflection, i.e. on some level, say, "Hey, that's me!" And although the former is doable, it's still a hard problem. The latter is, however, Hard.
If the brain is a physical object, then why should there not be a suitable theory that explains the difference between a non-sapient brick, and a sapient human brain?
The problem isn't theory. The problem is definition. "Sentience" is ultimately a word like "beauty" or "humor" or "intelligence." It's defined by our own perceptions, not by a universally agreed upon constant. So, while it might be possible to determine whether a computerized brain passes X, Y, Z criteria, we might have to leave it at that, at a functional definition, instead of trying to shoehorn X, Y, Z into the lay term of "sentience."
Let's not get too caught up in this game of words. Scientists may famously disagree over whether a virus is truly alive, or whether Pluto is a planet. But for the working scientist, it doesn't really matter whether a virus is defined as a "life form." It continues to have the same abilities whether or not the freshman textbooks call it alive. Similarly, our robot brain, whether or not we call it "sapient" will still have the same physical features and abilities. The Holy Grail of a definitive definition really doesn't exist, and doesn't need to.
Slashdot Mirror
Ugh, put away your high school biology text book and at least read the damned synopsis.
Yes, I can read.
The problem is simply this. You are engaging in a form of circular reasoning. "Assuming there is a selective advantage" Well, yes, obviously. But in that case, no need for a sick macaque to start the ball rolling, bipedalism would already be the norm through natural selection. And if there isn't a selective advantage to bipedalism, then children imitating their bipedal parent would find themselves losing the evolutionary race. Throughout the animal kingdom there tends to be very strong avoidance instincts when it comes to picking a potential mate who even appears to be slightly sick. (What's your natural urge when you see someone who has been stricken with polio? Or MS? Is it to imitate them? To mate them?) So imitating a sick parent is an almost guaranteed losing strategy, evolutionarily speaking.
what if an illness was the cause of the shift to bipedal motion by our evolutionary ancestors
That seems questionable -- sounds an awful lot like Lamarckism to me.
Indeed. They could register 10,000 domain names for approx. US$50,000/yr, which is "don't even bother to pick it up if it drops out of your pocket" change to Microsoft.
And apropos of this:
http://www.mocrisoft.com/
It seems rather dumb of MS not to have registered windowsupdate.com in the first place.
And in other news, world supplies of petroleum jelly were dangerously depleted last night.
I was going to mod you down but decided to respond instead.
Your comment is 100% FUD. Suddenly it's bad that Google is archiving newsgroups? It's not only Google's fault that you posted binaries in the first place, and that you were too dumb to use X-no-archive, but that you can't figure out how to follow their procedure for removing old posts?
And why do you put the word "offer" in scare quotes? Are you implying it's not really an offer, it's something else of unknown malevolence? Look. Google is, above all, a business, not a public service. Yes, they may do unknown, evil twisted things with your email. Poring through it with their grubby little computers, applying their sick, patented algorithms to search for phrases, using your most private thoughts for nefarious adword-enabling purposes. Those bastards!!11!! But hey, here's a clue. Don't sign up for GMail if that's your concern. End of story. There's no reason why their behavior should start to "really disquiet and annoy" you unless you have one of those psychological compulsions that prevents you from turning down free shit.
Maybe you shouldn't post here either. You might say something you regret in 20 years. Oh, too late!
I have nothing whatsoever against the French, but your "explanation" for alleged french behavior seems to be a bit of damning with faint praise:
Speak English to a Frenchman in France, though, and you have just earned yourself an enemy for life.
I mean, enemy for life? Just because I haven't learned your language? Dude, that's arrogant!
Exactly. In fact, a cynical person might even suppose that the very reason for these new proposed regulations is to do away with one potential objection to the new restrictive copyright regime: "We the people need to be able to tape shows to keep a record of any inaccuracies/indecencies." No you don't, Chairman Powell's saying, not anymore. Rather clever, innit?
Me thinks the Business Software Alliance are jumping on the bandwagon and vilifying P2P networks just as the Senate is taking aim at P2P providers."
The irony being, of course, that the vast majority of their claimed losses are outside the US, where a United States P2P ban would have absolutely no effect.
This being Starbucks, a large proportion of their clientele are gonna have iPods, so they really ought to have co-branded iTMS kiosks on site, with special deals prominently featured. E.g., they could sell a "mocha mix" of songs, 10 for 5 bucks, that would have 5 songs you pick yourself mixed in with 5 preselected "freebies" picked for you by StarApple's marketing arm. Or maybe a "3 songs and a latte combo". Or some other creative deal that doesn't isn't limited by physical media.
Obviously YMMV but the #1 reason why I'm not about to ditch my SD/Flash based MPIO player is that it takes standard AAA batteries. I like knowing that I can listen to my music all day long if I so choose without worrying about bringing a cradle or USB cord along with me. Not to mention that the MPIO is much smaller than even an iPod Mini. Although I'd consider the latter if it had a version that worked with standard batteries.
Listen, we can forgive you for being racist, but not for being dumb. How do you think normal auto/medical/homeowners etc. insurance works? If you make too many claims, your insurance rate goes way up, or you might even be deemed uninsurable. Regardless of whether or not you are in a protected class. So why should this be different for PSP type insurance? (Furthermore, discrimination claims don't work the way that you seem to think they do. The "disparate impact" if the defendant can't show a reasonable neutral explanation for the practice which leads to differing outcomes.)
I think your parent poster has a good idea, just so long as it effectively states in the policy that if BB deems you have excessively or frivolously used its insurance, or for any other reason, it may choose at its own discretion to deny you future insurance coverage.
if organisms truly are found on Saturn, the space race is going to really pick up speed within the next few years.
Three possible beneficiaries of Titanian space race:
1) Big Pharma - Think of the patents, man!
2) Defense Industry - There must be some way to "weaponize" a microbe that survives at -180C.
3) Big Oil -- Excuse me, did you just say hydrocarbons ?
Of course, your tax dollars will bankroll any exploration. Don't expect to see any of the profits, though.
Found this here.
Take a trip back to the early to mid-90s, or whenever you were a kid
:)
As those of us who lived through it can attest to, the era of classic retro games was the early to mid-80's.
Thanks for making me feel way old, Zorilla.
What SCOTUS also did was take away your right to refuse to answer in any state that does have such a law.
You mean to say, there's a law, and you actually have to obey it? How dare they! Next they'll make you pay taxes and recycle, those ivory tower bastards.
Really, the best cure for a bad law is to get rid of that law. Not to resort to an appeal from on high. Because, as you can see, that can easily cut both ways. And there is no appeal from a SCOTUS decision.
And the Republinazis who control Congress
Yeah, those Republinazis and billionaires control everything. Including the Supremes. I guess, game over then. Might as well just give up, eh?
Let's get straight what's going on here. The Supreme Court didn't say that cops now have a constitutional right to ask for your name any time. What SCOTUS did was uphold (within certain vague limits) a Nevada law requiring you to give your name to cops upon being stopped and questioned. Since it's just a law, it can be repealed by the Nevada legislature. Who are put into office by the voters of Nevada. They can set themselves free, instead of hoping for the almighty Supreme Court to do so. Imagine that.
I can't help wonder if they used a wide-angle lens in those shots to accentuate the curvature of the horizon.
Not that there's anything wrong with doing so, but perhaps it might be not quite as gee-whiz as it looks.
For the love of God, mod parent up.
Illegal in the US, you mean?
One of the comments in the cited links says that the copy protection is only for discs sold outside the US and UK.
But Philips is a lot smarter then you'll ever be.
;-)
Well, I'll give them half a point for successfully sabotaging the DVD Forum's little monopoly grab with their DVD+RW format. But I'll take away half a point for their miserable failure in introducing the misbegotten DCC.
It's a wash.
The issue of Schmerber v. California which is relevant to my objection is that it involved a DWI accident. It wasn't merely a random or gratuitous stop, which more recent rulings by SCOTUS show are not allowed under the 4th amendment. See e.g., City of Indianapolis v Edmond.
Nevertheless, I'll grant you that it is rather frightening that Schermber strictly allows for involuntary bodily violations, regardless of the circumstances, and overall I don't doubt that a further expansion of California's DNA database will have no problem passing constitutional muster. Scary.
I'll be sure to look further into this model legislation you mention.
Oops, I meant to give a link to the statute, but it got lost in the ether.
Look, let's be clear. You pulled that out of your ass.
The truth is that "implied consent" laws don't give the cops carte blanche to take a blood sample.
For example, in California, the cops must charge you with DUI or other violation or have a reasonable suspicion that you are intoxicated. They can't just stop you on a whim and ask you for a blood sample. And yes, implied consent exists, but contrary to what you stated, there is no "use of force" authorized. However, you will have your license suspended and face jail time if the offense is upheld. (Note, California laws are particularly stringent - AFAIK not all states have will give you jail time for merely refusing to take the test. Also, even in California, bloodwork is currently taken to test for drug/alcohol content, not for DNA samples.)
> YMMV
Ha-ha. Indeed.
So in sum, there is a kernel of truth in what you are saying, but in reality things are not nearly so dire.
I am talking solely about creating a robot that can recognise itself within a mirror.
But when you say that, you are glossing over the whole concept of what "recognition" is. For example, my computer responds when I type on its keyboard. Does that mean it "recognizes" that it is being typed upon? I think you'd agree that unless I have a much more advanced OS than Linux or Windows, my PC isn't "recognizing" anything, it's just responding. So when we say a robot can "recognize" itself in a mirror, do we mean that it can identify the parts that belong to it, or do we mean that it can reflect upon its reflection, i.e. on some level, say, "Hey, that's me!" And although the former is doable, it's still a hard problem. The latter is, however, Hard.
If the brain is a physical object, then why should there not be a suitable theory that explains the difference between a non-sapient brick, and a sapient human brain?
The problem isn't theory. The problem is definition. "Sentience" is ultimately a word like "beauty" or "humor" or "intelligence." It's defined by our own perceptions, not by a universally agreed upon constant. So, while it might be possible to determine whether a computerized brain passes X, Y, Z criteria, we might have to leave it at that, at a functional definition, instead of trying to shoehorn X, Y, Z into the lay term of "sentience."
Let's not get too caught up in this game of words. Scientists may famously disagree over whether a virus is truly alive, or whether Pluto is a planet. But for the working scientist, it doesn't really matter whether a virus is defined as a "life form." It continues to have the same abilities whether or not the freshman textbooks call it alive. Similarly, our robot brain, whether or not we call it "sapient" will still have the same physical features and abilities. The Holy Grail of a definitive definition really doesn't exist, and doesn't need to.