And yet, so long as you are aware it is only a model, it can greatly simplify communications;
"The file is correct, but the download manager thinks it's failing a hash check anyway" vs "The file is correct, but the hash function upon that file is generating an output which does not match the expected value."
The personified method helps sometimes, especially when trying to explain things to a layperson.
I can easily see an AI-like interface being programmed with at least the appearance of emotions in order to improve interactions with humans. It wouldn't take long for the operators of an AI-driven telephone customer services agent to work out that an appearance of empathy leads to improved customer satisfaction. Only way that differs from the real thing is that the fake-empathy would never be allowed to alter the business decisions made at a lower level: It doesn't matter how much the AI appears to feel for your difficulty, if the company policy is no refund then it's not going to make an exception for you.
Precisely what we don't know. If the NSA were throwing useful business intelligence to every American company that could benefit, news would have leaked by now - enough people would know that someone would inevitably talk. So any business spying they do perform must be tightly controlled, and the intelligence given only to the most trusted companies, like defense contractors.
The GUI is a fairly obvious idea. Xerox made one of the first, but if they hadn't then someone else would have soon enough.
Though perhaps not using a mouse. There are many forms of positional input hardware around now, it's quite possible that in a slightly different history another would have become dominant and we could all be steering cursors around with trackballs, or precision analog joysticks, or light pens.
Within a couple of weeks creationists are going to start pointing to this finding as evidence that scientists are never to be trusted. If they keep changing their mind on things, how do we know they are right now? If scientists can't give a clear answer, the creationists will argue, we must turn to the one eyewitness account we have of all history - the bible. Which is infallable, of course.
It doesn't really imply that. It does say that Frankenstein spent many years of his life devoted to occult studies in his desire to gain control over life and death - but also that he rejected that field after coming to the conclusion that it was all a load of worthless nonsense, and that he greatly regretted the time spent persuing what was not only a dead end but one that, in hindsight, should have been obvious as such. As soon as he realises that he turns towards medicine, recognising that even though this field makes far less grand promises it is able to make good on them. The book doesn't say exactly how he did it, but suggests that it was through entirely physical means - in particular it states that Frankenstein deliberately picked out the most oversized corpses and organs to work with, because the delicate surgical techniques would have posed much more difficulty had he been working with smaller components. That's why the monster created was so large and powerful.
Scientists measure energy in joules, economists and (for most purposes) the everyday public in watt-hours. For reasons of practicality: Watt-hours make calculating bills easier.
The world isn't short of food. The world just lacks a distribution system that makes sure everyone can get it. Free markets can be very powerful things, but providing universal access is one area they fail.
He lost to someone who spent much of their life practicing the game. That doesn't really mean anything. To be a chess grandmaster requires a great natural aptitude - but it also requires devotion to practice and study within that very narrow field.
You raise your concerns about unconstitutional programs with your boss, in writing, and if that works you go to his boss. They need to get paper for the management toilets from somewhere.
Possible, but very, very unlikely. The prosecution would be careful to block any jury member during selection who appears sympathetic to Snowden, citing grounds of bias.
The US does have some protections for whistleblowers, but none he can use - national security information is specifically excluded, as is the public interest defence. Any trial would consist of this:
Judge: "Did you release classified information?" Defense: "Only in the public interest." Prosecution: "Public interest defense is not considered a valid cause for releasing classified information." Judge: "Guilty. I sentence you to six hundred years in maximum security."
There isn't really anything he could say. That's even if the trial were fair - and it wouln't be. Chances are almost all the documentation will be classified so high neither he nor his lawyers would be permitted to see it, so he'll be defending against evidence he can't even know about. The only good thing for him is that he was a civilian contractor, so he at least would get a trial, rather than a military tribunal.
Yes, but everyone knows about their spying. To learn the Russian government is secretly spying on their population would be about as scandalous as learning another Republican is secretly spending his time off at a gay club.
That's why I put the limit on. It's easy to govern when the population is so small they can all agree on most things, and anyone who doesn't agree can just pack up and leave.
Don't forget that it's practically unenforceable. An unenforceable law is soon made a mockery of.
The UK recently extended our copyright term from fifty years to seventy for music. Mainly to make sure the Beatles stay covered - it's important to make sure their property rights are protected, or they might not make any more music.
Slashdot Mirror
A ruling by Judge Obvious, and his assistant Sarcastic Clerk.
And yet, so long as you are aware it is only a model, it can greatly simplify communications;
"The file is correct, but the download manager thinks it's failing a hash check anyway" vs "The file is correct, but the hash function upon that file is generating an output which does not match the expected value."
The personified method helps sometimes, especially when trying to explain things to a layperson.
Because depressing stories generally don't bring audience satisfaction and thus high sales.
I can easily see an AI-like interface being programmed with at least the appearance of emotions in order to improve interactions with humans. It wouldn't take long for the operators of an AI-driven telephone customer services agent to work out that an appearance of empathy leads to improved customer satisfaction. Only way that differs from the real thing is that the fake-empathy would never be allowed to alter the business decisions made at a lower level: It doesn't matter how much the AI appears to feel for your difficulty, if the company policy is no refund then it's not going to make an exception for you.
Dependency upon additional external DLLs? If this was an NSA thing, they'd design it better than that.
Unless they deliberately introduced an obvious substandard design element precisely to make people think someone else did it, of course.
There's no evidence this is an NSA program.
Precisely what we don't know. If the NSA were throwing useful business intelligence to every American company that could benefit, news would have leaked by now - enough people would know that someone would inevitably talk. So any business spying they do perform must be tightly controlled, and the intelligence given only to the most trusted companies, like defense contractors.
The GUI is a fairly obvious idea. Xerox made one of the first, but if they hadn't then someone else would have soon enough.
Though perhaps not using a mouse. There are many forms of positional input hardware around now, it's quite possible that in a slightly different history another would have become dominant and we could all be steering cursors around with trackballs, or precision analog joysticks, or light pens.
Within a couple of weeks creationists are going to start pointing to this finding as evidence that scientists are never to be trusted. If they keep changing their mind on things, how do we know they are right now? If scientists can't give a clear answer, the creationists will argue, we must turn to the one eyewitness account we have of all history - the bible. Which is infallable, of course.
It doesn't really imply that. It does say that Frankenstein spent many years of his life devoted to occult studies in his desire to gain control over life and death - but also that he rejected that field after coming to the conclusion that it was all a load of worthless nonsense, and that he greatly regretted the time spent persuing what was not only a dead end but one that, in hindsight, should have been obvious as such. As soon as he realises that he turns towards medicine, recognising that even though this field makes far less grand promises it is able to make good on them. The book doesn't say exactly how he did it, but suggests that it was through entirely physical means - in particular it states that Frankenstein deliberately picked out the most oversized corpses and organs to work with, because the delicate surgical techniques would have posed much more difficulty had he been working with smaller components. That's why the monster created was so large and powerful.
Scientists measure energy in joules, economists and (for most purposes) the everyday public in watt-hours. For reasons of practicality: Watt-hours make calculating bills easier.
The world isn't short of food. The world just lacks a distribution system that makes sure everyone can get it. Free markets can be very powerful things, but providing universal access is one area they fail.
Those chess grandmasters study the same books and tables extensively.
He lost to someone who spent much of their life practicing the game. That doesn't really mean anything. To be a chess grandmaster requires a great natural aptitude - but it also requires devotion to practice and study within that very narrow field.
That, and there's a democrat in the white house they can try to blame the whole thing on.
You raise your concerns about unconstitutional programs with your boss, in writing, and if that works you go to his boss. They need to get paper for the management toilets from somewhere.
Possible, but very, very unlikely. The prosecution would be careful to block any jury member during selection who appears sympathetic to Snowden, citing grounds of bias.
The US does have some protections for whistleblowers, but none he can use - national security information is specifically excluded, as is the public interest defence. Any trial would consist of this:
Judge: "Did you release classified information?"
Defense: "Only in the public interest."
Prosecution: "Public interest defense is not considered a valid cause for releasing classified information."
Judge: "Guilty. I sentence you to six hundred years in maximum security."
There isn't really anything he could say. That's even if the trial were fair - and it wouln't be. Chances are almost all the documentation will be classified so high neither he nor his lawyers would be permitted to see it, so he'll be defending against evidence he can't even know about. The only good thing for him is that he was a civilian contractor, so he at least would get a trial, rather than a military tribunal.
Or both.
Yes, but everyone knows about their spying. To learn the Russian government is secretly spying on their population would be about as scandalous as learning another Republican is secretly spending his time off at a gay club.
You've not worked with children, have you? If you put lego-like things in a school library, the'll have disappeared within a month.
The point is that creative commons are competing with commonly if illegally used commercial works, which are much more heavily promoted.
Imagine how many more linux desktops there would be if there was no way to pirate Windows.
But no major-label artist owns their own copyright. The labels do.
That's why I put the limit on. It's easy to govern when the population is so small they can all agree on most things, and anyone who doesn't agree can just pack up and leave.
Don't forget that it's practically unenforceable. An unenforceable law is soon made a mockery of.
The UK recently extended our copyright term from fifty years to seventy for music. Mainly to make sure the Beatles stay covered - it's important to make sure their property rights are protected, or they might not make any more music.