Moby rips off the zillions of techno/DJ artists who came before him
hi, i'm just here to point out that you're a big fucking idiot. hint: moby's been in the techno scene longer than god. he helped BUILD the rave scene. newbie.
infinite = forever, unending, doesnt stop indefinite = undefined, as in, it could go forever, or it could be tomorrow
saying the two are functionally equal is like saying... well, im tired right now and i cant think of a good analogy. but the point still stands.
anyways, ANY concept divided by zero "equals" infinite (not really, but for our purposes its close enough) so your point, while not only wrong, would also be useless if it was right.
boy are you wrong. typical theist who can't imagine anyone thinking in such a manner so alien to yourself. i don't believe in the existance of god. your god, osama's god, anyone's god. whether the derivitive of a jewish wind deity, or a big pink invisible bunny rabbit in the sky, i dont believe in any of em. therefore, i am an atheist. theres nothing supernatural about cosmic gas, no faith required. its gas, for christ sake.
to say that there is technically no such thing as an atheist shows that you are either unclear on the meaning of the word, or that you have religion-imposed blinders on.
you can purhcase a subscription, and then set it up so you still see ads on all pages. that way you get all the ads, AND you get to put money in the tip jar.
so why 16 for driving, but 18 for sex? getting pregnant is more serious/scary than death? the fact that no birth control method is 100% reliable is almost irrelevant to the point at hand, namely that setting a (too high) arbitrary age for consent and the ability to be in pornos is irresponsible and harmful.
and saying that we dont allow children to drive at 12 is a somewhat unfair comparison, namely because at the age of 12 most children are PHYSICALLY inable to drive due to height factors.
additionally, if a child drives irresponsibily, there is a very good chance they will DIE and kill other people in the process. if a child has sex with others irresponsibly, they may get pregnant or catch an STD. certainly not good things, but less risky in general than death, plus they are not putting anyone ELSE at risk, only themselves.
and if a child irresponsibly gets naked on camera, the only harm done is them feeling regret later in life. once again, not a GOOD situation, but hardly comparable to bodily harm/death of themselves or other innocent parties.
so, basically your argument is crap, and the fact still remains that in holland where the age of consent is *12* they have a lower teen pregnancy rate and STD rate, because kids are actually taught about sex and its consequences and how to avoid them.
look at holland for instance, where kids have sex frequently at ages as young as 13 and 14. yet their teen pregnancy rate is lower than ours. why do suppose that is? are they all infertile? no, their society teaches them the implications of sex withouth trying to cover things up, and they grow up being able to make intellegent, informed decisions for themselves, including the decision to be on the pill or wear a condom.
thats pretty much plain untrue. what is wrong with a 17 year old having sex with a 25 year old? it may seem creepy to some, but i think that people eating poo is creepy too and yet people do it all the time, legally. unless you can show that the relationship is harmful to one or more parties, it should be allowed.
this is why statutory rape laws are not needed at all. existing rape, child abuse, and "contributing to the delinquincy of a minor" laws are already capable of putting someone to jail if they are harming and/or taking advantage os someone too young to make decisions for themselves. leave it to a case by case basis, instead of the blind system we have in place now.
some states, not all tho. and that still doesnt answer the question as to why a 17 year old cannot make an informed decision about whether they wish to star in a porno or not, but three days later when they turn 18 they get a flash of insight and can suddenly make the decision for themself.
right, because the day they turn 18, something magical happens and suddenly they understand all the possible repercussions that getting naked on camera could have.
that one day's difference is enough to teach them a whole lifetime of moral and social implications, and they can suddenly make that choice that they could not have made 24 hours previously.
what a bunch of bunk. i'm all for the protection of innocence, but the meme that 18 is a special age is complete nonsense. teenagers have sex across the country, and to pretend that people under 18 lack sexuality is ignorant and harmful. the fact that an 18 year old male can be placed in prison and permanently branded "sex offender" for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend offends me. i know that when i was 16 years old, i was damn well smart enough to know what pornography meant, and that if i got naked on camera it would last forever.
this is a bit of a touchy subject for me. the current laws on child pornography and statutory rape are closeminded and plain wrong, and need reform.
they already offered that. judge refused, insisting they remove ALL components associated and installed with IE. this, of course, b0rks everything else that relies on IE components, which happens to be a LOT of programs.
sorry, you're an idiot. battle.net is free and will always remain free. that has been one of the major selling points for all of blizzards games since the original diablo. if they changed it the backlash would be uncalculable.
hate to dispel YOUR illusions, but coca cola didn't invent santa claus. it didn't even invent the stereotypical fat, red-clothed santa claus. see here for more details.
while there are many different current projects that would fall under the moniker of self-modifying code (that are not viruses) i think what you are getting at, and what is more relevant to our discussion, can be found here.
as far as self-modifying code performing the same task but differently, you are basically correct - the most useful application is programs that are written to be self-modifying in order to make themselves more efficient. they do the same basic thing, but can "learn" to do it much faster. as a counterpoint to your original argument, i read a recent article describing a man who wrote what he thought was the most efficient code possible to do a certain task, then ran the (self-modifying) code. after many iterations it was more efficient than what he thought was the most efficient solution - a program being "smarter" than its creator.
but for true innovation, for AI that can make revolutionary leaps instead of evolutionary ones, we are indeed not there yet. however, researchers are showing progress, and to rule it out is jumping too quickly to conclusions.
as for programs being smarter than their writer, you've cleverly sidestepped the issue by claiming several people would write it.
well, thats fine and all, so why couldn't a group of people develop AI that was smarter than any one individual in the group? i think you're being very close-minded about this.
oh? define "smart." there are computer programmers who can code a chess program that will beat its own programmer 100 times out of 100. now what does that say about your claim?
... dont mince words, i think we all know what the original poster meant. are you implying that people with cancer are mutants? or that people that go deaf or blind are mutants? those are changes too.
Slashdot Mirror
no, linux is a unix clone/rewrite. thanks for playing.
Moby rips off the zillions of techno/DJ artists who came before him
hi, i'm just here to point out that you're a big fucking idiot. hint: moby's been in the techno scene longer than god. he helped BUILD the rave scene. newbie.
if i were angelina jolie's brother, i'd sure as hell sleep with her too.
infinite = forever, unending, doesnt stop
indefinite = undefined, as in, it could go forever, or it could be tomorrow
saying the two are functionally equal is like saying... well, im tired right now and i cant think of a good analogy. but the point still stands.
anyways, ANY concept divided by zero "equals" infinite (not really, but for our purposes its close enough) so your point, while not only wrong, would also be useless if it was right.
boy are you wrong. typical theist who can't imagine anyone thinking in such a manner so alien to yourself. i don't believe in the existance of god. your god, osama's god, anyone's god. whether the derivitive of a jewish wind deity, or a big pink invisible bunny rabbit in the sky, i dont believe in any of em. therefore, i am an atheist. theres nothing supernatural about cosmic gas, no faith required. its gas, for christ sake.
to say that there is technically no such thing as an atheist shows that you are either unclear on the meaning of the word, or that you have religion-imposed blinders on.
infinite != indefinite
smarty pants.
you can purhcase a subscription, and then set it up so you still see ads on all pages. that way you get all the ads, AND you get to put money in the tip jar.
correlation != causality
take an introductory level logic course, then try again, please.
so why 16 for driving, but 18 for sex? getting pregnant is more serious/scary than death? the fact that no birth control method is 100% reliable is almost irrelevant to the point at hand, namely that setting a (too high) arbitrary age for consent and the ability to be in pornos is irresponsible and harmful.
and saying that we dont allow children to drive at 12 is a somewhat unfair comparison, namely because at the age of 12 most children are PHYSICALLY inable to drive due to height factors.
additionally, if a child drives irresponsibily, there is a very good chance they will DIE and kill other people in the process. if a child has sex with others irresponsibly, they may get pregnant or catch an STD. certainly not good things, but less risky in general than death, plus they are not putting anyone ELSE at risk, only themselves.
and if a child irresponsibly gets naked on camera, the only harm done is them feeling regret later in life. once again, not a GOOD situation, but hardly comparable to bodily harm/death of themselves or other innocent parties.
so, basically your argument is crap, and the fact still remains that in holland where the age of consent is *12* they have a lower teen pregnancy rate and STD rate, because kids are actually taught about sex and its consequences and how to avoid them.
having sex != getting pregnant
look at holland for instance, where kids have sex frequently at ages as young as 13 and 14. yet their teen pregnancy rate is lower than ours. why do suppose that is? are they all infertile? no, their society teaches them the implications of sex withouth trying to cover things up, and they grow up being able to make intellegent, informed decisions for themselves, including the decision to be on the pill or wear a condom.
thats pretty much plain untrue. what is wrong with a 17 year old having sex with a 25 year old? it may seem creepy to some, but i think that people eating poo is creepy too and yet people do it all the time, legally. unless you can show that the relationship is harmful to one or more parties, it should be allowed.
this is why statutory rape laws are not needed at all. existing rape, child abuse, and "contributing to the delinquincy of a minor" laws are already capable of putting someone to jail if they are harming and/or taking advantage os someone too young to make decisions for themselves. leave it to a case by case basis, instead of the blind system we have in place now.
some states, not all tho. and that still doesnt answer the question as to why a 17 year old cannot make an informed decision about whether they wish to star in a porno or not, but three days later when they turn 18 they get a flash of insight and can suddenly make the decision for themself.
right, because the day they turn 18, something magical happens and suddenly they understand all the possible repercussions that getting naked on camera could have.
that one day's difference is enough to teach them a whole lifetime of moral and social implications, and they can suddenly make that choice that they could not have made 24 hours previously.
what a bunch of bunk. i'm all for the protection of innocence, but the meme that 18 is a special age is complete nonsense. teenagers have sex across the country, and to pretend that people under 18 lack sexuality is ignorant and harmful. the fact that an 18 year old male can be placed in prison and permanently branded "sex offender" for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend offends me. i know that when i was 16 years old, i was damn well smart enough to know what pornography meant, and that if i got naked on camera it would last forever.
this is a bit of a touchy subject for me. the current laws on child pornography and statutory rape are closeminded and plain wrong, and need reform.
they already offered that. judge refused, insisting they remove ALL components associated and installed with IE. this, of course, b0rks everything else that relies on IE components, which happens to be a LOT of programs.
so, if anything, blame the DOJ.
Wil Wheaton!!
ad banners.
as meaningless as bets across the internet are, i'd happily take you up on that.
and what makes you so sure that they will start charging, anyway?
sorry, you're an idiot. battle.net is free and will always remain free. that has been one of the major selling points for all of blizzards games since the original diablo. if they changed it the backlash would be uncalculable.
hint, not just anyone can send one.
hate to dispel YOUR illusions, but coca cola didn't invent santa claus. it didn't even invent the stereotypical fat, red-clothed santa claus. see here for more details.
how can something be cheaper than free? please enlighten me.
while there are many different current projects that would fall under the moniker of self-modifying code (that are not viruses) i think what you are getting at, and what is more relevant to our discussion, can be found here.
as far as self-modifying code performing the same task but differently, you are basically correct - the most useful application is programs that are written to be self-modifying in order to make themselves more efficient. they do the same basic thing, but can "learn" to do it much faster. as a counterpoint to your original argument, i read a recent article describing a man who wrote what he thought was the most efficient code possible to do a certain task, then ran the (self-modifying) code. after many iterations it was more efficient than what he thought was the most efficient solution - a program being "smarter" than its creator.
but for true innovation, for AI that can make revolutionary leaps instead of evolutionary ones, we are indeed not there yet. however, researchers are showing progress, and to rule it out is jumping too quickly to conclusions.
wrong. self modifying code is old hat.
as for programs being smarter than their writer, you've cleverly sidestepped the issue by claiming several people would write it.
well, thats fine and all, so why couldn't a group of people develop AI that was smarter than any one individual in the group? i think you're being very close-minded about this.
oh? define "smart." there are computer programmers who can code a chess program that will beat its own programmer 100 times out of 100. now what does that say about your claim?
... dont mince words, i think we all know what the original poster meant. are you implying that people with cancer are mutants? or that people that go deaf or blind are mutants? those are changes too.