With all due respect, you're completely wrong. Of course they get to choose who to sue. Of course action outside the court has nothing to do with "precident." But if you only sue Microsoft after everyone and their brother has already made an Aqua theme, you cannot accuse them of diluting your brand image. Your brand image is already dilute. You will not be able to recover large damages.
Apple settled that trademark dispute. They paid Apple Records lots of cash. This is all well and good.
They lost their "look and feel" case, but Microsoft had not bit-for-bit copied any of their artwork. Using identical key-commands is one thing. Using someone else's bitmaps is another. This is also all well and good.
Oh, be fair. Wintel users get their Office upgrades first, and it takes us a few months to catch up. By the time they catch up, they have a few refinements they've made. It's not like it's a completely different product.
Not true. Slavery just can't work though. There are two ways to see it. You can suggest (as the USA Declaration of Independance does) that all people are 100% equal because God made them all. You can also suggest that the US government is a contract between all of the different citizens of the US (Which it isn't). And if it's a contract, no one would consent to a contract that involved enslavement of an ethnic minority because there would be no reason that their own ethnic minority would not be enslaved in the future.
You're much more likely to get the contract signed by everyone if none of them are getting enslaved. If I knew anything about game theory, I imagine it might apply. But I don't think that you need absolutism to get rid of slavery. I hope not, because absolutism has some serious flaws.
The reason is that under any reasonable key-escrow scheme a government would be required to show evidence before using the person's key to find the data.
But if you remember, the biggest issue in the Clipper Chip deal was that they changed the wording that created the "Fruit of the poison tree" doctrine that currently keeps illegally acquired evidence out of the courtroom. They might try to do away with the evidence requirement.
Different items. I think the FrontPage Web Components != FP Server extensions. I think that the web components are small units of content that you can get from MSN. The Server Extensions on the other hand are required to serve frontpage HTML.
I'm not sure I follow. The sentence that you use is typically used to contrast two bad things or two good things. You have contrasted a good thing and a bad thing.
I'd rather be strong than weak.
That said, I also don't really understand what you're talking about. What would you rather be right about? What would you be remembered for giving up on? I don't think I was responding to any of your posts.
Not all plane parts can withstand fire from rubber bullets. Are you honestly suggesting that the solution would be to allow everyone to bring whatever they like on a plane? At least with our current system there is some way that some portion of suicide attacks will be stopped. Your solution would mean that a suicide attacker could destroy any plane at any time, and the only barrier of entry would be the purchase of a shotgun.
I can believe I took the time to respond to this. Jesus.
Wow. Couple this with the story about the cell phone call from the plane that reported smoke on the wing.
Perhaps the story about the passenger takeover is absolutely factual. And, simultaneously, the F-16 shot the airplane down. Of course, in my opinion, the F-16 would have been doing the right thing.
This explains why the media has stopped mentioning the smoke on the wing since this new passenger takeover was reported. They don't want anyone curious about the possibility that the passengers' lives might have been saved.
Of course, also possible, is that the F-16 took no action at all. I guess it'll be a long time before we know for sure.
The only motivation that they've ever mentioned so far is hatred of America. Unfortunately, they will undoubtedly succeed at their real goal. Aside from causing pain.
The real goal is radicalization. Hopefully, the US will become radical. We will lash out. If they're lucky, we'll lash out at a pharmeceutical plant, but even if we lash out at the proper people, we will do so with extreme force. This will radicalize the people that sympathize with the terrorists. And that is the real goal.
The main reason that you should have been more careful about saying that the footage was false is that now we have every reason to not listen to you. It is clear that you (perhaps unintentionally) twisted the truth to make your point. You are now as tainted as the mass media that you decry.
As well, you should realize that many Americans are completely used to the mass media being wrong. We realize that these are the same people that said Florida was decided at 7pm on the election day (twice). Many Americans did not believe Fox News when they tried, convicted, and sentenced Osama Bin Lauden in the first hour after the attack.
If you really feel that the US military should not be involved (or not to the extent that it will, whatever) then the thing that should really scare you is that many Americans will be *very* well educated. And they might still disagree with you.
No. The whole point is this: if you shoot the terrorist in the head, your bullet will continue through his head and through the wall of the jet. This will immediately cause a large hole to be torn in the airplane, and it will crash. It doesn't matter how smart you are about your weapon, or how good a shot you are.
If Eliza has ever fooled any observer into believing that they were speaking to a human, this does not mean that Eliza passed the Turing test. The Turing test requires a critical observer. I don't believe you if you say that a critical observer has ever been fooled by any Eliza clone. Sorry. Eliza could be fooled by asking any question that was not 100% predicted by the designers.
Except that the Turing test was never supposed to determine the "intelligence" of a given system. It was to determine if we had successfully copied a human. I'm sure that Cyc could already beat any human on a test like MIST, simply because it is less forgetful. Knowledge of facts is not all that is required for this sort of AI.
It is worth noting that computer science has jumped into the fray a long time ago. At least, in terms of the history of psychology. All of the psychology classes that I have taken have discussed the human brain as a machine and used metaphors from computer science.
Everyone knows that the computer will need semantic abilities. Just because Eliza didn't doesn't mean that you're the first person to think of it. The programs are getting less crude and primitive. You'd be right if we gave up after Eliza.
Also. If there is *anything* that you think a computer should be able to do before it can be considered equivalent to a person, then incorporate it into the turing test! Ask the machine why he likes Van Gogh! If he sounds like a robot, then he fails. Hell, try to teach him something over the course of the test. Turing doesn't say that the critical observer should have any limits placed upon him to determine which is the machine and which is the human.
Imagine this: Turing says that if a machine wins the game 50% of the time, then it is indistinguishable from a human and should be considered intelligent. A really smart person (like a con artist) might be able to think of special responses that might make the tester realize that he's speaking to a human.
But a computer that is arbitrarily powerful would be able to more accurately model the tester's mind, and thus could win the turing test considerably more often than 50% of the time. How do you like that?
Of course, we have to fight it and the EFF is right. Also, folks like Aimster are proving that the DMCA can just as effectively be used to defend piracy. They assume that the "software publishers" will necesarily be large corporations. Thankfully, subversives can also publish software and manipulate the BS that is the DMCA.
Of course, folks like RMS might argue that this is so they can then pass new legislation to stop subversives from publishing software, as he describes in The Right to Read. This is why it's still totally necesary to fight these restrictions to our rights. Still. The DMCA is sooooo silly.
At the lovely University of Pennsylvania, it's a total breeze. We have so many freshman that want to get an on campus job that they don't realize how badly they're being ripped off. So they sign up to be "Information Technology Advisors" and there are about 15 per dorm. One sits with a laptop at the front desk and people ask him for help. The other 14 sit in the computer lab on our bulletin board waiting for jobs to show up. We do a couple thousand cases in a week.
They show up a week early for school for "training" where someone shows them how to download ethernet drivers onto a floppy from a website. And click on windows control panels to enable DHCP. Anything more complicated gets refered up to more experienced (And more paid) personel.
I assume this is the way most schools do things. It's kindof cut and dried, cheap, and effective.
Re:Believe it or not...
on
Dorm Storm?
·
· Score: 2
Well. Then offer to become "the guy that can fix my pelvic tilt."
When I said "And Apple stopped sharing specs because they didn't want harware competition" I didn't mean that Be was the one providing that hardware competition. They stopped sharing their specs with *everybody* because they didn't want any hardware competition. Be was sortof a civilian casualty.
And, BeOS smoked on the exact same hardware... at *what*?
Of course it smoked at multitasking, and most everything that any user cares about. I'm not about to suggest that it wasn't more efficient than MacOS in the general case. But this was a discussion (long ago) of photoshop/media cleaner performance. That sort of app does not benefit from multitasking or any of the modern features of BeOS. They benefit from the ability to monopolize the processor. The only reason that I responded to your original post is that it is not likely that photoshop's performance would be improved hugely by BeOS.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he meant hardware stability, not corporate stability.
With all due respect, you're completely wrong. Of course they get to choose who to sue. Of course action outside the court has nothing to do with "precident." But if you only sue Microsoft after everyone and their brother has already made an Aqua theme, you cannot accuse them of diluting your brand image. Your brand image is already dilute. You will not be able to recover large damages.
Two things:
Apple settled that trademark dispute. They paid Apple Records lots of cash. This is all well and good.
They lost their "look and feel" case, but Microsoft had not bit-for-bit copied any of their artwork. Using identical key-commands is one thing. Using someone else's bitmaps is another. This is also all well and good.
Oh, be fair. Wintel users get their Office upgrades first, and it takes us a few months to catch up. By the time they catch up, they have a few refinements they've made. It's not like it's a completely different product.
Not true. Slavery just can't work though. There are two ways to see it. You can suggest (as the USA Declaration of Independance does) that all people are 100% equal because God made them all. You can also suggest that the US government is a contract between all of the different citizens of the US (Which it isn't). And if it's a contract, no one would consent to a contract that involved enslavement of an ethnic minority because there would be no reason that their own ethnic minority would not be enslaved in the future.
You're much more likely to get the contract signed by everyone if none of them are getting enslaved. If I knew anything about game theory, I imagine it might apply. But I don't think that you need absolutism to get rid of slavery. I hope not, because absolutism has some serious flaws.
You say:
The reason is that under any reasonable key-escrow scheme a government would be required to show evidence before using the person's key to find the data.
But if you remember, the biggest issue in the Clipper Chip deal was that they changed the wording that created the "Fruit of the poison tree" doctrine that currently keeps illegally acquired evidence out of the courtroom. They might try to do away with the evidence requirement.
Different items. I think the FrontPage Web Components != FP Server extensions. I think that the web components are small units of content that you can get from MSN. The Server Extensions on the other hand are required to serve frontpage HTML.
I'm not sure I follow. The sentence that you use is typically used to contrast two bad things or two good things. You have contrasted a good thing and a bad thing.
I'd rather be strong than weak.
That said, I also don't really understand what you're talking about. What would you rather be right about? What would you be remembered for giving up on? I don't think I was responding to any of your posts.
Not all plane parts can withstand fire from rubber bullets. Are you honestly suggesting that the solution would be to allow everyone to bring whatever they like on a plane? At least with our current system there is some way that some portion of suicide attacks will be stopped. Your solution would mean that a suicide attacker could destroy any plane at any time, and the only barrier of entry would be the purchase of a shotgun.
I can believe I took the time to respond to this. Jesus.
Wow. Couple this with the story about the cell phone call from the plane that reported smoke on the wing.
Perhaps the story about the passenger takeover is absolutely factual. And, simultaneously, the F-16 shot the airplane down. Of course, in my opinion, the F-16 would have been doing the right thing.
This explains why the media has stopped mentioning the smoke on the wing since this new passenger takeover was reported. They don't want anyone curious about the possibility that the passengers' lives might have been saved.
Of course, also possible, is that the F-16 took no action at all. I guess it'll be a long time before we know for sure.
The only motivation that they've ever mentioned so far is hatred of America. Unfortunately, they will undoubtedly succeed at their real goal. Aside from causing pain.
The real goal is radicalization. Hopefully, the US will become radical. We will lash out. If they're lucky, we'll lash out at a pharmeceutical plant, but even if we lash out at the proper people, we will do so with extreme force. This will radicalize the people that sympathize with the terrorists. And that is the real goal.
The main reason that you should have been more careful about saying that the footage was false is that now we have every reason to not listen to you. It is clear that you (perhaps unintentionally) twisted the truth to make your point. You are now as tainted as the mass media that you decry.
As well, you should realize that many Americans are completely used to the mass media being wrong. We realize that these are the same people that said Florida was decided at 7pm on the election day (twice). Many Americans did not believe Fox News when they tried, convicted, and sentenced Osama Bin Lauden in the first hour after the attack.
If you really feel that the US military should not be involved (or not to the extent that it will, whatever) then the thing that should really scare you is that many Americans will be *very* well educated. And they might still disagree with you.
No. The whole point is this: if you shoot the terrorist in the head, your bullet will continue through his head and through the wall of the jet. This will immediately cause a large hole to be torn in the airplane, and it will crash. It doesn't matter how smart you are about your weapon, or how good a shot you are.
If Eliza has ever fooled any observer into believing that they were speaking to a human, this does not mean that Eliza passed the Turing test. The Turing test requires a critical observer. I don't believe you if you say that a critical observer has ever been fooled by any Eliza clone. Sorry. Eliza could be fooled by asking any question that was not 100% predicted by the designers.
Exactly.
Except that the Turing test was never supposed to determine the "intelligence" of a given system. It was to determine if we had successfully copied a human. I'm sure that Cyc could already beat any human on a test like MIST, simply because it is less forgetful. Knowledge of facts is not all that is required for this sort of AI.
It is worth noting that computer science has jumped into the fray a long time ago. At least, in terms of the history of psychology. All of the psychology classes that I have taken have discussed the human brain as a machine and used metaphors from computer science.
Everyone knows that the computer will need semantic abilities. Just because Eliza didn't doesn't mean that you're the first person to think of it. The programs are getting less crude and primitive. You'd be right if we gave up after Eliza.
Also. If there is *anything* that you think a computer should be able to do before it can be considered equivalent to a person, then incorporate it into the turing test! Ask the machine why he likes Van Gogh! If he sounds like a robot, then he fails. Hell, try to teach him something over the course of the test. Turing doesn't say that the critical observer should have any limits placed upon him to determine which is the machine and which is the human.
Turing test is pretty excellent.
Imagine this: Turing says that if a machine wins the game 50% of the time, then it is indistinguishable from a human and should be considered intelligent. A really smart person (like a con artist) might be able to think of special responses that might make the tester realize that he's speaking to a human.
But a computer that is arbitrarily powerful would be able to more accurately model the tester's mind, and thus could win the turing test considerably more often than 50% of the time. How do you like that?
When do you grant it human rights?
The DMCA is soooo silly.
Of course, we have to fight it and the EFF is right. Also, folks like Aimster are proving that the DMCA can just as effectively be used to defend piracy. They assume that the "software publishers" will necesarily be large corporations. Thankfully, subversives can also publish software and manipulate the BS that is the DMCA.
Of course, folks like RMS might argue that this is so they can then pass new legislation to stop subversives from publishing software, as he describes in The Right to Read. This is why it's still totally necesary to fight these restrictions to our rights. Still. The DMCA is sooooo silly.
Some of us come here because it's funny.
Great job. Now we'll have banners that only pop up once you click a link. You've ruined everything.
Of course I'm kidding. But keep in mind that most "pop-under" ads only pop up at the beginning of page load. That is, when you click a link.
At the lovely University of Pennsylvania, it's a total breeze. We have so many freshman that want to get an on campus job that they don't realize how badly they're being ripped off. So they sign up to be "Information Technology Advisors" and there are about 15 per dorm. One sits with a laptop at the front desk and people ask him for help. The other 14 sit in the computer lab on our bulletin board waiting for jobs to show up. We do a couple thousand cases in a week.
They show up a week early for school for "training" where someone shows them how to download ethernet drivers onto a floppy from a website. And click on windows control panels to enable DHCP. Anything more complicated gets refered up to more experienced (And more paid) personel.
I assume this is the way most schools do things. It's kindof cut and dried, cheap, and effective.
Well. Then offer to become "the guy that can fix my pelvic tilt."
When I said "And Apple stopped sharing specs because they didn't want harware competition" I didn't mean that Be was the one providing that hardware competition. They stopped sharing their specs with *everybody* because they didn't want any hardware competition. Be was sortof a civilian casualty.
And, BeOS smoked on the exact same hardware... at *what*?
Of course it smoked at multitasking, and most everything that any user cares about. I'm not about to suggest that it wasn't more efficient than MacOS in the general case. But this was a discussion (long ago) of photoshop/media cleaner performance. That sort of app does not benefit from multitasking or any of the modern features of BeOS. They benefit from the ability to monopolize the processor. The only reason that I responded to your original post is that it is not likely that photoshop's performance would be improved hugely by BeOS.